Rance 2004 Drungus

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/289250043
Drungus, Δροῦγγος and Δρουγγιστί – a Gallicism and Continuity in Roman

Cavalry Tactics
Article in Phoenix · January 2004
CITATION READS
1 243
1 author:
Philip Rance
Freie Universität Berlin
67 PUBLICATIONS 119 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
RESEARCH PROJECTS: RECENT AND FORTHCOMING View project
REVIEWS View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Philip Rance on 04 January 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
DRUNGUS, DROUGGOS, AND DROUGGISTI: A GALLICISM

AND CONTINUITY IN LATE ROMAN CAVALRY TACTICS
Philip Rance
This paper is a study of continuity of both practice and terminology

within the best-attested institution of the Roman world, the Roman army, and
it utilises certain texts whose wider historical significance is seldom recognised.
Roman military historians have long accepted Vegetius’ late fourth-century
Epitoma rei militaris as a potential source of evidence for the Roman army
of the Principate or even the late Republic, albeit with careful consideration
of every passage in terms of the author’s sources, methodology, and purpose.
Later technical military works dating to the sixth century, however, notably
the Strategicon of the Emperor Maurice, are conventionally regarded as being
beyond the pale of evidential validity for earlier Roman practices. This is
due to a great extent to the traditional characterization of such late antique
military treatises as “Byzantine.” As a consequence they have tended to receive
only the detailed attention of scholars seeking the origin of the subsequent
Byzantine tradition, while their status as the culminating documents of Roman
military science has been largely ignored. The importance of the Strategicon
in particular for Roman historians lies in the fact that it is in large part a
compendium of earlier documentary material, indeed precisely the sort of non-
literary texts or informal writings that are rarely preserved, whose unprecedented
vernacular idiom and uniquely technical perspective have the potential to cast
much light on the earlier Roman army. Several recent studies have shown that
the Strategicon exhibits a very considerable degree of continuity in content and
terminology with military methods dating back to at least the third century a.d.,
and in some instances much earlier.1 This paper offers a further “case study”
partly on account of its intrinsic historical and etymological interest, and partly
by way of illustration of the value of this later material in elucidating earlier
practices.
The word drungus is first attested in the late fourth century, while the Hellenized
droggow first appears in the early fifth century. The cognate adverb drouggist’ is
attested from the late sixth century. Although modern studies of late Roman (and
Byzantine) armies have frequently noted these terms, comments in this modern
literature often conflict, in part a reflection of the considerable ambiguity in their
usage in contemporary texts. The only previous study to concern itself with
drungus/droggow was a monograph by Kulakovskii published in 1902, though
he was less interested in the origins and contemporary application of drungus than
in the later and varied development of the Byzantine office of drougg‡riow, and
1
See Speidel 2000; Rance 2000 and 2004.
96
PHOENIX, VOL. 58 (2004) 1–2.
DRUNGUS, DROUGGOS, AND DROUGGISTI 97
he omitted discussion of the term drouggist’ altogether.2 Drungus, droggow,

and drouggist’ are usually thought to designate a new and specific tactical
formation developed uniquely by the late Roman cavalry, apparently under
“barbarian” or specifically “Germanic” influence, and characterized as a loose,
irregular grouping suitable for skirmishing and raiding. This paper examines the
different and changing meanings of drungus/droggow in late Roman texts, and,
insofar as they illuminate our reading of the latter, briefly extends this treatment
to middle Byzantine texts. It will examine the disputed etymological origins and
development of this term; attempt to account for its variant usage, even within the
same text; and relate these variations to the different literary registers—official,
technical, vernacular, generic—in which it was used. It will also attempt to define
the tactical deployment described by the phrase [= t‡jiw] drouggist’, hitherto
misunderstood, and to establish whether the appearance of this novel terminology
necessarily implies late Roman tactical innovation.
DRUNGUS in latin sources and its etymology

The word drungus first appears in Vegetius’ Epitoma rei militaris, for which
a late fourth-century date is preferred here.3 Vegetius purposefully omits the
whole subject of cavalry from his treatise, since “current practice suffices,” and
this branch of the contemporary Roman army is therefore not included in his
selective reforming programme.4 He cannot ignore cavalry altogether in his
broader treatment of battle tactics, however, and it is in this context that he
mentions drungi. In a brief treatment of cavalry deployment (3.16, De equitibus
ordinandis), Vegetius describes the traditional dispositions of cavalry in the Roman
battle line, with the heavy cavalry (fortioribus equitibus) protecting the flanks of the
infantry, while at the extremities of the battle line “the enemy’s flanks are to be
overwhelmed or disordered by the swifter and lighter cavalry” (a velocioribus atque
expeditis hostium cornua superfundenda atque turbanda). Vegetius then remarks
that, “the general should know against which drungi, that is groups, of enemy
he ought to position which of (his) cavalry” (scire dux debet contra quos drungos,
hoc est globos, hostium quos equites oporteat poni); Vegetius means simply that the
general should choose an appropriate troop type to counter enemy attacks. From
this passage it is apparent that drungus is another word for globus. The latter
word appears in the following chapter concerning the importance of maintaining
reserves, where Vegetius similarly notes the danger arising “if a detached group
(globus) of the enemy should begin to press either your wing or some other part”
2 See Kulakovskii 1902: 3–12 for a discussion of drungus/droggow with lengthy textual quotation,
though often from deficient editions; 12–14 for a brief etymological treatment, largely drawn from
Du Cange 1688; 15–30 for a discussion of drungarius/drougg‡riow.
3
For a convenient summary of the dating evidence and earlier literature, see Milner 1996:
xxxvii–xli. For subsequent debate, see Zuckerman 1994; Richardot 1998.
4
Veg. Epit. mil. 3.26: ex libris nihil arbitror colligendum, cum praesens doctrina sufficiat; cf.
contemporary Roman cavalry praised at 1.20.
98 PHOENIX
(si globus hostium separatus aut alam tuam aut partem aliquam urguere coeperit,
3.17). Although both these passages present the synonymous globi or drungi as
enemy (hostium) formations, they appear to carry out the very role Vegetius has
just assigned to the Roman light cavalry, that of threatening and harassing the
enemy wings. Vegetius mentions drungi a second time in a subsequent chapter
concerning how to counter hostile stratagems in battle (3.19). Again he highlights
the danger enemy globi or drungi pose to the Roman flanks:
Care must be taken especially lest your men be surrounded on their left wing or flank, as
often occurs, or indeed on their right, although this rarely happens, by a mass of the enemy
or by mobile groups, which they call drungi.
Cavendum vel maxime, ne ab ala cornuque sinistro, quod saepius evenit, aut certe dextro, quod
licet raro contingit, circumveniantur tui a multitudine hostium aut a vagantibus globis, quos
dicunt drungos.
Again, although the globi or drungi are envisaged as enemy formations, they
are identical in their tactical role to the Roman light cavalry.5 The superficial
impression that globi or drungi are solely an enemy phenomenon derives rather
from Vegetius’ characteristically defensive attitude to combat, which tends to
place the tactical initiative with the enemy.
In these chapters Vegetius, as was his custom, reprised antiquarian material,
which he occasionally sought to update and elucidate with additional details and
contemporary, sometimes popular, terminology. Vegetius’ phrase “which they
call drungi” (quos dicunt drungos) is one of the formulae he uses for indicating his
insertion of contemporary terminology into his more ancient source(s).6 In this
instance his source was almost certainly the lost De re militari of Cato, written
in the early second century b.c. and perhaps known to Vegetius only imperfectly
through an epitome or at even greater remove. Indeed the word globus itself
is probably Cato’s rather than Vegetius’. This is suggested later in the same
chapter (3.19) where Vegetius lists the names and definitions of selected Roman
tactical formations, many of them manifestly antiquarian and/or theoretical, such
as the “wedge” (cuneus), “pincer” (forfex), and “saw” (serra), and in some cases he
similarly updates this material with contemporary expressions, noting of cuneus,
for example, that “the soldiers call this ‘the pig’s head’ ” (milites nominant caput
porcinum).7 The final item in this list reads, “the ‘group’ (globus) is a body of men
who separate off from their own line, and charge into the enemy in a mobile attack.
A more numerous and stronger ‘group’ is sent against it” (globus autem dicitur qui
a sua acie separatus vago superventu incursat inimicos, contra quem alter populosior
vel fortior inmittitur globus). Vegetius’ list corresponds closely to a rare extant
5 The point is made by Kempf (1901: 369–370) and Milner (1996: 98, n. 4).
6
For other examples in Vegetius, see below, 103, n. 24.
7
The popular character of this expression, in effect contemporary “military slang,” compared to
the classical and more correct cuneus is confirmed at Amm. Marc. 17.13.9: “which formation simple
military parlance terms ‘the pig’s head’ ” (quem habitum caput porci simplicitas militaris appellat).
fragment of Cato’s treatise: “one needs to attack in a ‘wedge’ or a ‘group’ or with

the ‘forceps’ or ‘towers’ or the ‘saw’ ” (opus sit cuneo aut globo aut forcipe aut turribus
aut serra, uti adoriare).8 Further support for the Catonian origin of Vegetius’
summary of tactical formations is provided by the appearance of globus in a very
similar sequence of vocabula militaria cited by the second-century a.d. miscellanist
Aulus Gellius, who undoubtedly knew Cato’s work.9 In short, Vegetius’ original
contribution to the middle Republican text of these passages appears to be
limited to the additional remark indicating that in his day such detached bands
or globi were also called drungi; apart from this terminological gloss the text is
essentially Cato’s treatise of the second century b.c. The globi/drungi Vegetius
describes, therefore, and their tactical role, are not specific to his own period, but
reflect a generic designation for mobile tactical formations, Roman or foreign,
detached from the main battle line, whose purpose was to harass and outflank
the enemy line. Vegetius, who was antiquarian in method if not in purpose,
appears to regard globus as the “proper” term, while drungus was the contemporary
language of the soldiers, hence quos dicunt drungos, an example of “military slang”
rather than technical terminology. Vegetius’ Epitoma, however, is riddled with
misunderstandings of earlier practices and terminology, often founded on his
own etymological deductions and historical assumptions. It is not clear how
close in reality was the equation between Cato’s second-century b.c. globi and
the cavalry deployment that late fourth-century Roman soldiers called drungi.
Indeed, it is not even possible to determine with certainty whether Cato’s globus
exclusively applied to cavalry forces, rather than an outflanking “detached band”
or “company” of any description; Vegetius himself elsewhere uses globi generically
in the context of “bands” of infantry, as did his near-contemporary Ammianus
Marcellinus and early Latin historians.10 It is important to bear in mind that
Vegetius was adapting an ancient text that appeared to correspond broadly, from
his civilian and amateur perspective, to contemporary Roman practices.
The word drungus also appears in a narrative historical source, the Vita
of Probus in the Historia Augusta, now dated to the late fourth century and
8 Cato De re mil. fr. 11 in Jordan 1860: 82.

9 Gell. NA 10.9.1: Quibus modis quoque habitu acies Romana instrui solita sit; quaeque earum
instructionum sint vocabula. I. Vocabula sunt militaria, quibus instructa certo modo acies appellari solet:
frons, subsidia, cuneus, orbis, globus, forfices, serra, alae, turres. Gellius also cites Cato De re militari at NA
6.4.5.
10 Veg. Epit. mil. 3.24: circumfusis undique armatorum globis. Milner (1996: 114 with n. 2) strangely
translates this “massed groups” and “massed platoons,” which is not even Milner’s own definition of the
term: cf. 4.18, eruptione facta globus egreditur armatorum, where Milner (1996: 131) has “platoon.” For
Ammianus’ use of globi, see 20.5.1: armatarum cohortium globis; 21.4.8: cum auxiliorum expeditissimis
globis; 25.1.16: stipatus armatarum cohortium globis; 27.8.7: divisas plurifariam globis adortus est vagantes
hostium manus; 31.5.9: barbari . . . globos irrupere nostrorum incauti; 31.7.12: subsidialis robustissimus
globus. For earlier Latin authors the word globus never possessed a sense more specific or technical
than “company” or “band”: for example, Livy 1.6.7, 12.9; Tac. Ann. 4.50, 12.43, 14.61, 15.60; Sil.
Pun. 7.53. See Kromayer and Veith 1928: 598.
100 PHOENIX
therefore contemporary with Vegetius’ Epitoma. In a chapter detailing the

outstanding public entertainments of Probus’ reign, the author comments that
the emperor “celebrated a triumph over the Germans and the Blemmyae, and
led bands (drungos) of up to fifty men from all nations before his triumphal
procession” (triumphavit de Germanis et Blemmyis, omnium gentium drungos usque
ad quinquagenos homines ante triumphum duxit).11 This is the only non-technical
Latin work to contain the word drungus, though the author of the Historia
Augusta appears to have been in some measure sensitive to contemporary military
terminology.12 The contemporary usage of drungus therefore extended to the
broad sense of a “group,” “band,” or “company” of any description, without a
specifically tactical context. In a very similar passage describing an imperial
procession in the Vita of Gallienus, the author uses the synonym globi rather than
drungi in an identical context.13 This underlines the correspondence between the
two words as used by Vegetius, and reinforces the impression that drungus is not
a technical term for a specific tactical formation but rather was understood by
late fourth-century authors in the broad sense of “band” or “group.” It will be
demonstrated below that this usage preserves the original core meaning of this
loanword.
Concerning the etymology of drungus there is no consensus in modern
literature, which, leaving aside the more outlandish antiquarian etymologies, may
be divided into two camps that have rarely communicated. Historians of the late
Roman and Byzantine military who have discussed the term almost universally
cite a Germanic derivation for drungus, often in the context of a perceived
“Germanization” of late Roman military techniques and personnel. Accordingly,
drungus is associated with the modern German verb dringen (< *þringan), with
the sense “to crowd” or “to press forward,” assuming an earlier nominal form
* þrunga. In all cases Du Cange’s seventeenth-century lexical entry appears to
be the ultimate source of this conclusion.14 The fourth-century appearance of
drungus, therefore, is accounted for by the greater presence of Germanic peoples
11 SHA Prob. 19.2. Probus celebrated this triumph in a.d. 281. The phrase omnium gentium
drungos . . . ante triumphum duxit is perhaps echoed in Zonaras Epit. Hist. 12.29: (´st—rhtai) ka“
katˆ poll™n \yn™n tr—paia st}sasyai.
12 For example, carrago: SHA Gall. 13.9; Claud. 8.2, 5; Aurel. 11.6; Clibanarii: SHA Sev. 56.5;
scurra (with the late sense of “guardsman”): SHA Heliogab. 33.7; Sev. Alex. 61.3, 62.5 (though unclear
meaning at Tyr. Trig. 30.26); centurio: SHA Alb. 11.6: ordinarios centuriones.
13 SHA Gall. 8.7: ibant praeterea gentes simulatae, ut Gothi, Sarmatae, Franci, Persae, ita ut non minus
quam duceni globis singulis ducerentur.

14 Du Cange 1885–87: s.v. drungus, cols. 1657–58. Oman (1898: 175–176) and Kulakovskii
(1902: 12–14) accepted the Germanic derivation. It was maintained by Grosse (1920: 256): “Endlich
sei noch erwähnt, dadamals ein geschlossener Haufe Fussvolk globus oder drungus genannt wurder.
Diese letztere Ausdruck ist eins der vielen germanischen Lehnwörter die damals in die römische
Soldatensprache eindrangen”; see also Haldon 1984: 385; Kollautz 1985: 108, n. 9: “Das Wort
Drungus ist eindeutig germanischer Herkunft”; Bartusis 1991: 1.664, from German “thrunga” (sic);
Kolias 1993: 40.
within the empire from that date and their presumed tactical influence upon
Roman fighting styles. However, not only is “Germanization” or “barbarization”
no longer considered a wholly accurate characterization of the later Roman army,
but the derivation of drungus from a posited *þrunga is also intrinsically unlikely on
etymological grounds.15 Indeed, by contrast, for over a century philologists have
concurred with equal unanimity that the late Latin word drungus is undoubtedly of
Celtic origin. This is most clearly manifested in the Old Irish form drong and Old
Breton drogn or drog, whose original sense was “people” or “tribe,” which came
by extension to mean a “group,” “muster,” “troop,” “crowd,” “throng,” or “band,”
both in a generic and a more specific military sense. On the basis of these attested
Celtic forms the posited Gaulish *dhrungho is held to be the direct inspiration
for the Latin drungus.16 Earlier lexical entries claiming a Germanic root on the
basis of superficially similar modern German forms are the products of naive
seventeenth-century guesswork, and even the very small number of subsequent
philological studies to prefer a Germanic derivation have recognised its inherent
problems.17
15 For important modifications to the traditional “barbarization” thesis, see Whitby 1995; Elton
1996; Nicasie 1998: 107–116.

16 Holder 1896: 1.1331 s.v. drungo-; Kempf 1901: 369–370; Pedersen 1909–13: 1.106–7; TLL
V.1, fasc. x, col. 2071: “vox gallica vel britannica esse videtur . . . caterva, turba”; Dottin 1920: 253;
Walde and Hofmann 1938–54: 374–375; Pokorny 1959: 1:1093, s.v. trenk-: “ngr. droggow, spätlat.
drungus und air. drong ‘Schar’ sind echt keltisch (*dhrungho-) und keine germ.”; Mihǎescu 1968: 495;
Ernout and Meillet 1979: 185: “mot étranger, sans doute celtique”; Lambert 1997: s.v. drong; 2003:
205; Delamarre 2003: 126. The Celtic derivation is tacitly accepted by Milner (1996: 98, n. 4).
17
The “Teutonic” origin of drungus was first vigorously stated by Pontanus (1606: 223–224),
“Drungus hodieque purum putum nostri Teutonicique idiomatis vocabulum est . . . . Nam hodie
nostratibus Germanisque usitatius est, Gedrung & gedreng.” Spelman (1664: 185–186) relates drungus
to the (actually unattested) Anglo-Saxon ðrunga and the modern English “throng” (in fact probably
derived from AS geþrang). Both Pontanus and Spelman are cited by L. Favre (in Du Cange 1885–87:
s.v. drungus, cols. 1657–58), seemingly with neither consent nor rebuttal, though his comment on
Pontanus’ rather simplistic reasoning “quod idem sonat” (i.e., drungus and Gedrung) perhaps hints at
caution. Presumably following these entries, von Miklosich (1886: 50, s.v. drongarĭ), accepted the
Anglo-Saxon drunga (sic) as the origin. Subsequent studies were aware that initial Gmc þr- w o u l d
produce Lat tr- and not dr- (see Kempf 1901: 369–370). Brüch (1913: 16–17), while accepting this,
indulged in special pleading to postulate that Latin drungus had therefore resulted from a conflation of
two (unattested) Gmc words *þrung and *druht. Brüch moreover explained away the Old Irish drong
(and presumably other attested Celtic forms) by boldly asserting that the Old Irish form was itself,
on the contrary, a borrowing from Latin, and not vice versa; for this he cites Walde, though Walde
says nothing of the sort and in fact favoured the Celtic derivation (cf. Walde and Hofmann 1938–54:
374–375; Brüch cites 1906 ed.). Although at very best improbable, Brüch’s conclusion was cited
by Gamillscheg (1970: 23), and his argument was recently rehearsed by Green (1998: 185), though
with much less conviction. Kuhn (1972: 44), noting that the word “sounded Germanic,” nevertheless
recognises that the initial sound is problematic and the etymology doubtful. Brüch 1913 was the last
and only modern study to argue the case for a Germanic derivation on the etymological evidence.
In a lengthy review article, Terracini (1921: 425–426) casually inferred without argumentation, and
purely on the basis of historical circumstance, that drungus was likely to be Germanic, because of its
late attestation, and suggested (as did Brüch, implausibly) that it had thereafter somehow passed via
102 PHOENIX
The precise reasons for the adoption of this Celtic term, and the date
this occurred, are obscure. Roman military historians comfortable with the
“Germanization” context will doubtless find a Celtic derivation less convenient,
though it is not as problematic as it initially appears. Roman authors express
an interest in and admiration for Gallic, Iberian, and British cavalry, and the
raising and deployment of Roman auxilia cavalry from these peoples, especially
in the pre-Flavian period, is well attested.18 Their importance and influence is
indicated in the Roman adoption of a wide range of Gallic equestrian practices and
technologies, including designs of bridle bit, saddle, and harness; horse-shoeing
and riding techniques; “equestrian deities” and horse breeds; as well as the related
technology of wheeled vehicles.19 More to the point, in his Ars Tactica of a.d.
136/7, Arrian singles out “Celtic techniques” (tˆ pr‡gmata a[tˆ Keltik‡)
as being especially influential in the development of Roman cavalry, and notes
that several terms in current usage among the Roman cavalry “derive from the
language of Iberians or Celts” (úllˆ Ástin ¶ t,w (fvn,w) &Ib}rvn É Kelt™n),
including the “Cantabrian charge,” xynema, petrinos, and toloutegon (Kantabrik|
\p3lasiw, jœnhma, p3trinow, toloœtegon).20 More generally, it is possible to
cite other Celtic loanwords which passed into standard Latin military vocabulary,
including later common terms such as lancea and sagum, though the adoption of
very few appears to post-date the late Republic.21 Here lies the apparent difficulty
with a “Celtic” drungus: why should a Gaulish term make its first appearance in
two (probably) late fourth-century texts? Contact with Celtic peoples, and most
likely Gallic recruits, seems the most obvious context. Literary and epigraphic
evidence suggests that the Gaulish language still enjoyed some degree of currency
in Gaul, and continued to influence locally-spoken Latin, up to the fourth century,
especially in rural areas and even at an elite level, and traces may be discerned as
Latin into insular Celtic languages. Terracini’s line of speculation, unscientific and later emphatically
rejected by other philologists, was nevertheless repeated as fact by Weisgerber (1931: 199), and thence
by Whatmough (1950: 220; repr. 1970: 894).
18 For example, Strabo 4.4.2: “they (the Gauls) are better as cavalry than as infantry and the best
cavalry the Romans have comes from these peoples” (kre’ttouw d' ´pp—tai É pezo’ ka“ Ásti ^Rvma’oiw
t,w ´ppe’aw úr’sth parˆ totvn); cf. Caesar B Gall. 1.15, 7.76; B Civ. 3.59–60; B Afr. 6; Plut. Crass.
25; App. B Civ. 4.88. See generally Cheeseman 1914: 57–65; Saddington 1982: 5–14, 137–160;
Goldsworthy 1996: 68–73.
19 Luff 1982; Bishop 1988: 71–74; Dixon and Southern 1992: 63–64, 67–69, 122; Junkelmann
1992: 18–19, 35–36, 57–58, 94–97; Hyland 1990: 122–125; 1993: 41–43, 45–51. In addition,
Schmidt (1967: 168–170) identifies twelve certain or likely Celtic loanwords in Latin terminology for
wheeled vehicles, attesting the influential techniques of Celtic cartwrights and wheelwrights.
20 Arr. Tact. 33.1; cf. 37.4: ` p3trinow d| ¥nomaz—menow t_ Kelt™n fvn_; 40.1: Kantabrik} tiw
kaloum3nh \p3lasiw g’netai; 42.4: = gˆr d| jœnhma t_ Kelt™n fvn_ kaloum3nh; 43.2: ka“ t˜
Árgon toto Keltist“ toloœtegon kale”tai; for explanation and commentary, see Hyland 1993.
21
Kempf (1901: 385–386) lists a number of “Celtica verba” signifying Celtic military equipment,
which passed into Latin (in a few cases through Greek) and in some instances entered regular Roman
military terminology: caetra, cantabrum, carrus, cateia, gaesum, lancea, mataris, parma, sagum. Of these
only cantabrum, like drungus, is first attested in a post-Republican context.
late as the sixth century.22 For comparative purposes, one could cite bagaudae or
bacaudae as a Gaulish-derived word that gained currency in Latin in the late third
and early fourth centuries.23 But given the popular, non-technical character of
drungus outlined above, essentially as an element of “military slang,” it is safe to
assume that its first attestation in a literary text is no real indicator of the date of
its adoption or the period of its usage. Vegetius’ Epitoma is the only extant general
military treatise in Latin and as such uniquely preserves a considerable number of
terms unattested before him, but very unlikely in every case to be neologisms of
his period.24 A very similar example may be cited from Vegetius’ own Digesta artis
mulomedicinae, like his Epitoma a compendium of earlier writings and the only
surviving general Latin treatise of its genre, in this instance veterinary medicine,
principally equine. Here Vegetius uses another Gaulish word, gulbia, the term for
a specially-designed tool used to cut away the dead part of a horse’s hoof during
an operation to release infected matter in cases of chronic lameness. This device
appears to resemble a farrier’s traditional butteris, a sharp, long-handled chisel for
paring or trimming hooves.25 Vegetius is the first author to use this word (indeed
it is only otherwise attested, as guvia, two centuries later in Isidore of Seville’s
Etymologiae at 19.19.15), but given that Celtic technology and techniques had
22 For fourth-century survival, cf., for example, Sulp. Sev. Dial. 1.27; Jer. Comm. in Ep. Gal. 2. The
degree of emphasis is debatable: MacMullen (1966: 14–15), largely on the basis of literary evidence,
suggests that Gaulish may have continued to be the predominant language in some regions, possibly
even undergoing a resurgence in the fourth century; Whatmough (1970: 68–76) is less positive.
23
The word bagaudae or bacaudae first appears in the 280s, seemingly as a popular designation
for brigands; cf. Aur. Vict. Caes. 39.17: quos Bagaudas incolae vocant. The word bagaudae probably
derives from the Celtic *bāgā, a fight, with the Celtic suffix -aud; see Walde and Hofmann 1938–54;
Szádeczky-Kardoss 1968; Minor 1975. For other references, see Czúth 1965 and generally van Dam
1985: 17–20, 25–56; Drinkwater 1992.
24 Vegetius’ use of phrases like quos dicunt does not necessarily imply something new to his own
time, but often refers to practices and phenomena of considerable antiquity. This is true even in the
case of nunc dicitur or nunc dicunt, which appear to refer to “recently” adopted, and certainly previously
unattested, terms, but Vegetius’ etymological glosses may mean no more than a terminological change
in the long interval since the production of his source material, which in some instances dates to the
second century b.c. See, for example, 2.1: quae nunc vexillationes uocantur; 2.7: quos nunc draconarios
vocant; 2.8: quem nunc ducenarium vocant, . . . centuriones . . . qui nunc centenarii nominantur, . . . decani
. . . qui nunc caput contubernii vocantur; 2.13: insuper, qui nunc centenarii vocantur; 2.15: nunc spiculum
dicitur . . . nunc verutum dicitur . . . quos nunc exculcatores et armaturas dicimus; 2.20: apud signiferos, ut
nunc dicunt; . . . Erant decani, denis militibus praepositi, qui nunc caput contubernii vocantur; 3.8: nunc
militiae factus est gradus et circitores vocantur; 3.14: quos antea principes vocabant . . . quos prius hastatos
vocabant, . . . antea ferentarios nominabant; 3.19: quam rem milites nominant caput porcinum.
25 Veg. Mulomed. 1.26.2: compones pedem ad gulbiam et omnem ungulam ad vivum allides (“bring the
foot up against a gulbia and pare away the hoof as far as the living tissue”). The now largely obsolete
butteris was a long, sharp-pointed chisel mounted on a wooden stock shaped to fit against the farrier’s
shoulder. With the horse’s hoof in one hand, and its lower leg secured between his knees, the farrier
would direct the blade of the butteris with his other hand, pushing down on the tool with his shoulder
to trim the sole of the hoof. It has in recent years been superseded by the more dextrous hoof knife.
For archaeological evidence, see Walker 1973: 321–322, though he equates, I believe wrongly, the
butteris with the word ferramentum (clearly rather a kind of scalpel at Veg. Mulomed. 2.42.2)
104 PHOENIX
exercised a strong influence on Roman equestrian science since at least the first
century a.d., and especially Celtic-inspired developments in horse-shoeing from
that date, it is impossible to believe that both this implement and its Gaulish name
only came into use more than three centuries later.26 The first attestation of gulbia
therefore has been determined by the unique survival and technical content of
Vegetius’ veterinary handbook, though centuries of vernacular usage undoubtedly
preceded his treatise.
Returning to drungus, as noted above, the author of the Historia Augusta was
also aware of contemporary developments in Roman military terminology, but,
more to the point, his use of drungus indicates that by the time of writing drungus
had already acquired a wider “civilian” currency as a generic word for “band” or
“group.” I would suggest, therefore, that the use of the Gaulish-derived word
drungus, especially at a vernacular level among Roman soldiers, had a much longer
“prehistory,” and that its first appearance in extant texts in the late fourth century
is due primarily to the absence of earlier authors prepared to use such Vulgar
Latin terminology inconsistent with stylistic purity. If this impression of the
long-term popular currency of drungus is correct, then the original adoption of the
term into Latin, whatever the circumstances, is not necessarily to be connected
with the simultaneous adoption of a specific Celtic practice, that is a distinct
style of cavalry combat or tactics. It is quite possible, indeed likely, that this was
rather a nominal borrowing which popularly applied a Gaulish word to an existing
and corresponding Roman practice or phenomenon. Thus, in military parlance,
and presumably originally among Gallic soldiers, a “detachment” of cavalry, and
possibly of other troops, came to be known unofficially by the “barbarian” word
drungus. Vegetius does not really provide an answer in this respect, since, as we
have seen, he interpolates a contemporary terminological gloss into an antiquarian
literary model.27 Unfortunately far too little is known of the fighting styles of
earlier Gallic cavalry, or, in detail, of Roman cavalry prior to the first technical
treatment of the subject in the late sixth-century Strategicon.28 It will be suggested
26 Gulvia is glossed as podoglifin (= podoglœfin; var. podoglufe”oin) in Corpus Glossariorum
Latinorum 2.522.46. For the Late Latin gubia, gulbia, and guvia and its Celtic derivation see TLL
VI.2, col. 2354, s.v. gubia et gulbia; Dottin 1920: 261, s.v. gulbia; Walde and Hofmann 1938–54:
625, s.v. gubia und gulbia; Pokorny 1959: 1.367, s.v. gelebh-; Ernout and Meillet 1979: 284, s.v. gubia;
Lambert 2003: 198. Cf. Old Irish gulban (*gulbı̂no-); Old Welsh gilbin; Old Breton golbina, the core
sense of which is “beak,” “prickle,” or “spike.” Niedermann (1921: 440–441) alone doubts the Celtic
derivation, but see Vendryes 1924: 503–504. The archaeological evidence for metal horse-shoeing,
dating back as far as the late first century b.c., is restricted to Gaul and Britain, and perhaps reflects
climatic conditions together with Celtic equestrian knowledge and metallurgical techniques: see
Hyland 1990: 122–125.
27 Though it is perhaps worth noting the evidence for a possible Celtic or Celtiberian background
for Vegetius and his equestrian knowledge in the context of the Digesta artis mulomedicinae. See
Milner 1996: xxxii–xxxv.
28
“Celtic” cavalry deployment is obscure. The comment of Caesar (B Gall. 5.16) that the British
cavalry “never fought in close array but in loose order with wide intervals” (accedebat huc ut numquam
below, however, that the more frequent usage of drungus and its cognates from
the late fourth century does not signify radically “new” tactics developed by the
late Roman cavalry, but in fact reflects in part the idiomatic concerns of particular
authors prepared to use vernacular terminology, and in part a changing emphasis
in Roman cavalry operations which saw the more frequent use and perfection of
certain existing practices and deployments.
DROUGGOS in greek sources

After the late fourth century the term drungus is attested only in the Greek
transliteration droggow. The first appearance of droggow again illustrates the
generic, non-technical sense of the word. In a letter to his disciple Olympias
(written ca 404–407), John Chrysostom describes his experiences in Caesarea
when confronted by the twin menace of Isaurian bandits and violently hostile
monks, detailing how “collectively towards dawn a ‘drungus’ of monks—for thus
must one call it and indicate in speech their frenzy—came to the house we
were in” (úyr—on ¿p˜ t|n £v droggow monaz—ntvn—o¹tv gˆr de” e pe”n ka“
t_ l3jei t|n man’an a[t™n \nde’jasyai—\p3sthsvn t_ o k’Ù Ánya Ómen).29
Chrysostom’s purpose in this passage is to emphasise the violent behaviour of the
monks by juxtaposing their man’a to the threat posed by the Isaurian marauders,
even claiming that the soldiers defending him were less frightened of the latter.
Whatever the polemical nature of this narrative, the hostile context of the monks’
forceful, mob-like actions seems to require a translation such as “rabble” or
“troop,” perhaps with deliberately military overtones. This is the only late Roman
usage of droggow before the Strategicon ascribed to the Emperor Maurice, and
reveals, like the appearance of drungi in the Historia Augusta, a somewhat wider
currency for the term beyond technical military treatises.
The officially sponsored “handbook for generals” known as the Strategicon
was compiled in the 590s, with a manuscript ascription (accepted here) to the
Emperor Maurice (582–602).30 The Strategicon is not a treatise “on strategy,”
but explicitly a “rather modest elementary guide or introduction” (metr’an tinˆ
conferti sed rari magnisque intervallis proeliarentur stationesque dispositas haberent, atque alios alii deinceps
exciperent, integrique et recentes defetigatis succederent) is vaguely reminiscent of Vegetius’ vagantes globi
or globus qui a sua acie separatus. The comparison is inconclusive, however, and does not agree with
the evidence for the character of a drungus discussed below; in any case the passage’s textual problems
make its relevance to specifically cavalry forces uncertain. For a probably late first-century “intelligence
report” on British fighting techniques, see Bowman and Thomas 1987: 135–137 (= Tab. Vindol.
2.164); Goldsworthy 1996: 239–240. These are at best superficial comparisons and probably reflect
generalized Roman perspectives of “barbarian” cavalry operating in loose tactical groupings rather than
close-order linear formations.
29 J. Chrysostom Ep. 4 ad Olymp. 2 (PG 52, col. 614).
30
The arguments for date and authorship are summarised in Dennis 1981: 15–18; Rance 1994:
28–42. In addition, that the Strategicon is not dedicated to the reigning emperor, uniquely among
Roman tactica (with the exception of Onasander’s dedication to a consular), in itself implies at least
imperial sponsorship.
106 PHOENIX
stoixe’vsin ¾toi e sagvg|n), which is concerned primarily with the day-to-day

routines and procedures and rather mundane technical minutiae of contemporary
military practice.31 Maurice expressly eschews stylistic considerations in favour
of practical utility and writes in a plain vernacular idiom comprehensible to
army officers, often utilising contemporary military jargon and “Latin and other
terms which have been in common military usage.”32 The Strategicon is in large
part a compendium of late Roman military documents—ordinances, disciplinary
regulations, “drill books,” and procedural explanations—and owes relatively little
to the more polished literary compositions of the earlier genre. As such the
Strategicon often uniquely preserves the sort of informal and non-literary material
that rarely survives outside papyrological contexts, including the most detailed
and technical treatment of the fundamentals of cavalry training, deployment, and
tactics to survive from antiquity. This is of very considerable value in elucidating
earlier Roman practices, especially given Vegetius’ near-complete neglect of
cavalry.
Maurice employs the term droggow in a number of quite distinct senses. In
one context Maurice’s droggow appears to be consistent with the terminological
usage and tactical deployment found in Vegetius’ Epitoma. As part of his
schematic treatment of a “typical” cavalry engagement, Maurice describes in detail
sophisticated outflanking manoeuvres (3.14) carried out by a single “concealed
drungus” (droggow lany‡nvn). The “concealed drungus” was to advance behind
a screening formation of “outflankers” (¿perkerasta’) positioned on the extreme
right of the Roman battle line. It appears that this screening unit and “concealed
drungus” each comprise a single “regiment” (t‡gma or b‡ndon) of 200–300 men.33
Just before contact with the enemy battle line, the “outflankers” extend their
screen and begin to encircle the enemy’s left flank. As they do this, the “concealed
drungus” charges out from behind the screening formation into the rear of the
31 Strat. pref. 14–24. It was, however, very much a topos of the genre to emphasize the elementary
nature of a treatise relative to earlier “classics.” In fact, Maurice’s preface, in content and vocabulary,
owes much to Aelian’s Tactica Theoria 1.2, 6, in particular the notion that both texts are an e sagvg}
as opposed to more advanced technical monographs.
32 Strat. pref. 29–30: Ðyen ka“ ^Rvma•ka”w poll‡kiw ka“ Ällaiw \n strativtik_ sunhye’Ù
tetrimm3naiw xr}meya l3jesi. See the recent comments of Rance (2000: 31–34).
33 The duties of “outflankers” are explained at Strat. 3.14; cf. 3.10 for the overall battle plan with
diagrams. See generally Mazzucchi 1981: 128–129. At 3.14.4–7 there are two units of outflankers,
here named tagmata, though “banda of archers” at 2.4.5–6; Maurice uses these terms synonymously
throughout. The codices of the Strategicon exhibit some inconsistency in the two diagrams of this
manoeuvre at 3.10. In the first diagram the “concealed drungus” is labelled droggow pr™tow (M;
incorrectly droggow tr’tow in Dennis 1981: 178, apparatus) or droggow g' (VN), though simply
droggow (PA). These variations are repeated in the following diagram, but with droggow tr’tow in
M. The “third drungus” (droggow tr’tow) must be a straightforward misreading of pr™tow as tr’tow.
The reading “first drungus” (droggow pr™tow) is itself presumably a misunderstanding of droggow
a´ or “one drungus,” as emended by Scheffer (1664: unpag. = 540; Dennis 1981: 178). For the
representation of the “concealed drungus” as a triangle in the diagrams at Strat. 3.10 in printed editions
see below, 114–115, n. 55.
enemy, its men causing as much confusion as they can just as the opposing battle
lines engage. Thus, Maurice writes, “even in open country they are able to carry
out ambushes (tˆw \n3draw) relatively safely.” Dennis loses the force of this point
by translating tˆw \n3draw here as “surprise attacks,” but elsewhere always as
“ambushes.”34 The point is that highly trained Roman cavalry were expected to
be able to engineer an “ambush” even in the open field, regardless of terrain or
circumstances, and by a carefully orchestrated stratagem minimised the dangers of
a frontal assault. Maurice recommends that in training these tactics be rehearsed
against a simulated enemy formed by a single line of Roman soldiers, so that the
outflankers, including the “concealed drungus,” might gauge and coordinate the
speed and direction of their manoeuvres.35
Maurice’s precepts here are reminiscent of Vegetius’ description of the tactical
operations of drungi or vagantes globi, detached from their main line (a sua acie
separatus), which were especially suited to outflanking and enveloping the enemy’s
left wing (ab ala cornuque sinistro . . . circumveniantur). The difference is really
only in the degree of detail, which merely reflects the two authors’ divergent
interests, and especially Maurice’s particular concern to encourage the correct
deployment and tactical manoeuvres of cavalry. This similarity also underlines
the characterization of the Strategicon as essentially a compendium of late Roman
documents, descriptive in character, rather than the prescriptive “reform” or
innovation suggested by its superficially “Byzantine” appearance, which in large
part derives from its vernacular Greek idiom and its unique preservation of
(certainly older) technical material.
Continuity between Vegetius and Maurice should not surprise, and supports
the earlier assertion that the frequency with which the vernacular word drun-
gus/droggow is attested depends above all on the survival of texts whose au-
thors were prepared to employ such popular usages. In particular, the literary
idiom favoured by contemporary narrative historians, together with their general
avoidance of the technical details of battles in favour of dramatic prose sequences
aimed at a civilian readership, renders very difficult the identification of Vegetius’
drungi or vagantes globi operating on the wings or Maurice’s outflanking “con-
cealed drungus” (droggow lany‡nvn). For example, the experienced Roman
officer Ammianus Marcellinus describes the deployment of a rebel army in 373,
comprising mainly Moorish troops. He reports that there were nearly 20,000 in
the main battle line, “with bands (globi) of reserves concealed behind them, in
order that they might gradually rise up and envelop our men with their unexpected
numbers.”36 Although the generally vague language and the Moorish context
34 Strat. 3.14.32–34, translated at Dennis 1984: 50.
35 The “concealed drungus” (droggow lany‡nvn) is also remarked upon at 3.5.77–85, where
tactical secrecy is enjoined, and at 86–92 and 110–126, regarding training requirements. See Rance
2000: 234–6.
36
Amm. Marc. 29.5.47: et barbarorum viginti paene milia in ipsis locata sunt frontibus, occultatis pone
terga subsidialibus globis, ut assurgentes paulatim nostros multitudine clauderent insperata. For another
108 PHOENIX
make direct comparisons uncertain, the tactical concept and terminology appear to
reflect the Roman battle tactics described by the near-contemporary Vegetius, and
later by Maurice. It is just possible that Ammianus describes here a “barbarian”
battle deployment conceptualised in Roman terms.
The “concealed drungus” (droggow lany‡nvn) is the only context in which
Maurice uses the noun droggow in the sense of a specific tactical deployment.
The character of this deployment will be discussed below in relation to the
cognate adverb drouggist’, but it is first necessary to examine a different usage
of droggow in the Strategicon, one that has generated some confusion. The
intrinsic ambiguity of certain passages of this treatise has been compounded by
the tendency of some modern scholars to read Maurice’s text, and envisage the
army he describes, in light of later Byzantine military developments that are in
fact anachronistic to Maurice’s period. This is part of a wider contextual problem
with the Strategicon, which has tended to be the preserve of Byzantine scholarship
and thus seen as an early text in Byzantine military history; it has been relatively
neglected by Roman scholars, for whom, as noted above, it preserves valuable
information and perspectives. Throughout the treatise Maurice also employs
droggow in the generic sense of a “grouping,” a “banding together,” or even
the non-specific “formation” or “unit.” This is particularly the case with the
larger cavalry formations he describes, such as a “brigade” or moira (mo”ra) and a
“division” or meros (m3row). Maurice defines these formations as follows: “a meros is
a grouping or drungus composed of three moirai; while a moira is a body composed
of tagmata or numeri or banda” (m3row \st“ t˜ \k tri™n moir™n sugke’menon
Äyroisma ¾goun droggow, mo”ra dI t˜ \k tagm‡tvn ¾toi úriym™n É b‡ndvn
sugke’menon pl,yow, Strat. 1.3.14–15). It is very tempting to see droggow here,
as others have, as a synonym for m3row. This is especially so given that the term
droggow is later attested in middle Byzantine texts as the official title of a specific
and permanent unit within the army’s organizational structure (see below). It has
therefore been asserted that a “division” of the late sixth-century Roman army was
called a m3row or droggow, and that Maurice “frequently uses drouggos to mean
meros.”37 A later passage appears to confirm this interpretation, where Maurice
writes, “it is sufficient for only one drungus or meros to adopt these positions”
(úrke” ka“ di' °n˜w m—nou droœggou ¾toi m3rouw toto g’nesyai t˜ sx,ma,
Strat. 9.3.103–104).
It is important to appreciate, however, precisely what Maurice is describing
and the nature of the terms he uses. First, in Maurice’s day, while these
“brigades” and “divisions” undoubtedly existed, they were temporary and ad
possible instance of globi deployed in outflanking, see 25.3.4: ex alia parte cataphractorum Parthicus
globus centurias adoritur medias, ac sinistro cornu inclinato acriter superfusus . . . .
37 Zilliacus 1935: 144–145; Mihǎescu 1968: 495–496; Haldon 1984: 385–386 (quoted); 1999:
315, n. 6. Mihǎescu defined droggow as “foule dense, masse” or “rassemblement, agglomération,”
believing it to be a synonym for m3row, as “partie d’une armée.” Mihǎescu numbers this synonymous
m3row/droggow at 3,000 strong, though a m3row in the Strategicon has around twice that strength; he
appears to have in mind the later Byzantine droggow.
hoc groupings for individual campaigns or even particular battles, rather than
permanent administrative structures of the late Roman army. Direct comparison
with the middle Byzantine period, when such permanent structures did exist, is
therefore unhelpful. Second, in the early chapters of the Strategicon, Maurice
endeavours to establish a workable terminology for his treatise, a set of coverall
Greek words for certain units, ranks, commands, and practices which will
help the reader through a potentially confusing multiplicity of terms derived
from different languages, genres, and registers—official titulature, vernacular
idiom, literary genre, Latin, Greek, or “barbarian.” In effect, he coins words
so generic that the reader will understand what he means later in the treatise
without his having to list all the possible terms for the same phenomenon or
practice: hence, for example, “A comes or tribunus is the leader of a tagma
or arithmos or bandum” (k—mhw d3 \stin ¾toi tribonow ` to t‡gmatow É
úriymo É b‡ndou =goœmenow, 1.3.16), or “moirarchs, who are also called duces or
chiliarchs” (moir‡rxaw . . . toLw legom3nouw dokaw ¾toi xili‡rxaw, 1.4.13).38
Although for the sake of utility Maurice purposefully employs contemporary
Latin terminology throughout his work, he mixes this with words drawn from
the long-standing tradition of military treatises or tactica written in Greek, what
might be called a useful but artificial “tactica-speak,” of which the generic mo”ra
and m3row are clear examples.39 These are not therefore technical terms or
38 In the first example, k—mhw, tribonow, and b‡ndon are hellenized Latin terms, the last of
Germanic origin; úriym—w is a translation of the Latin numerus; and t‡gma is Maurice’s generic term
for any type of “regiment.” In the second example, Maurice defines his generic moirarch (moir‡rxhw)
in relation to both contemporary official Roman titulature, dux/doœj, and to chiliarch (xili‡rxhw), a
word derived from the earlier genre of Greek tactical treatises. These generic terms allowed the author
to talk very generally about an army that contained different types of unit, perhaps with different
command structures.
39 The moira (mo”ra) is attested in this sense nowhere else, though it is reminiscent of fourth-
century regimental “pairings,” on which see Elton 1996: 91. Maurice clarifies the term by equating
it to a chiliarchia (xiliarx’a), a convenient term derived from Hellenistic military vocabulary; cf.
Strat. 1.4.11, 13: e w mo’raw ¾toi xiliarx’aw . . . moir‡rxaw xrhs’mouw toLw legom3nouw dokaw
¾toi xili‡rxaw. The word mo”ra has a longer literary tradition, however, as a generic “company,”
in different sources variously equating to decuria, centuria, manipulus, or cohors (e.g., Strabo, t3ttarew
mo”rai úndr™n) or more broadly a “section” of men; cf. Herodian 6.6.3 and TGL 6, col. 1133D–
1134A. Antiquarian tactical treatises contain the cognate dimoir’a of eighty men, commanded by a
dimoir’thw; see Asclep. 2.2; Ael. 5.2; Arr. Tact. 6.2. Agathias (Hist. 1.17.4, 20.7) employs the word
úp—moira in the hitherto unattested sense of a “detachment” of an army.
While m3row is not previously attested in this sense in tactical literature it is an obvious generic term
for “division,” and the cognate merarx’a, commanded by a mer‡rxhw, appears in earlier antiquarian
military treatises, where it comprises “two chiliarchae” (a´ dœo xiliarx’ai; just as Maurice uses
xiliarx’a as a synonym for mo”ra), and totals 2048 men: see Asclep. 2.10; Ael. 9.7; Arr. Tact. 10.5. It
appears that for most of the army (setting aside some elite praesental units) there were no permanent
tactical or administrative structures in this period above the 200- to 400-strong t‡gma, Maurice’s
coverall term for the several types of “regiment” that might make up an army (probably the realistic
field strength of a unit whose paper strength was 500). The need for such larger battlefield formations
and commands as mo”ra and m3row arises in part from the small unit sizes of the late Roman army.
The earlier imperial legion offered a convenient apparatus for deploying 5,000 to 6,000 troops on the
110 PHOENIX
the official late Roman nomenclature for “brigade” and “division”—indeed it

is extremely doubtful whether the currency of mo”ra and m3row in this sense
extended beyond the milieu of Greek tactical writing; they are convenient coverall
terms for ad hoc battlefield groupings. Similarly, their commanding officers,
Maurice’s moirarch (moir‡rxhw) and merarch (mer‡rxhw), are better understood
as generic terms for temporary campaign or battlefield commands rather than
permanent “ranks” in an established Rangordnung. To be sure, there were senior
officers who acted as “flank commander” or “the general commanding the centre,”
but they did not bear these artificial and generic titles. I would suggest that
in contemporary Latin terminology, Maurice’s moirarchs and merarchs would be
variously magistri militum, comites, duces, or tribuni, or even commanders of
significant allied contingents, or a trusted bucellarius of the commander-in-chief,
in short a broad collection of senior officers who would be assigned to whichever
of these ad hoc positions corresponded to their existing seniority, abilities, or
connections.40
Returning to Maurice’s definition of a “division,” therefore: in the phrase
m3row \st“ t˜ \k tri™n moir™n sugke’menon Äyroisma ¾goun droggow, the
term droggow is employed not as an alternative technical term for m3row but as
a synonym for the generic Äyroisma, that is simply a “grouping” of brigades or
moirai (mo’rai).41 Similarly Maurice defines a mo”ra itself as a “combination”
or “group” (pl,yow) of regiments (mo”ra dI t˜ \k tagm‡tvn ¾toi úriym™n É
b‡ndvn sugke’menon pl,yow, Strat. 1.3); here droggow has no more specific or
technical a sense than pl,yow.42 This is also apparent in other passages of the
battlefield. Even if nothing were known of mo”rai and m3rh, we might assume that the later army had
some mechanism for grouping its many small units into larger tactical commands in the battle line.
40 See Strat. 1.4.15: “merarchs, who are also called stratelatai” (mer‡rxaw, toLw legom3nouw
strathl‡taw). The term strathl‡thw was often used in the later Roman period as a direct Greek
equivalent of a magister militum (Grosse 1920: 183), but sixth- and early seventh-century usage
was far less precise and this increasingly devalued title could variously denote a dux (e.g., J. Mal.
366.78–80: strathl‡thw t,w Mus’aw = dux Moesiae [secundae]), a tribunus or a high-ranking notable
commanding troops in any capacity, or even a civilian employing bucellarii. In the Strategicon it appears
to encompass a number of senior ranks; for detailed discussion, see Durliat 1979.
In comparing the Strategicon with the near-contemporary battle narratives of historians, the
problem is therefore one of idiom. In their descriptions of battlefield deployments the Roman army is
often divided into a left, right, and centre division, which equate to Maurice’s generic meros, whatever
the historians call them (sometimes indeed m3row, otherwise classicising f‡laggew, t‡jeiw, etc.).
Writers like Procopius or Theophylact Simocatta note that these “divisions” were commanded by
named officers. Again these are what Maurice for convenience calls merarchs (mer‡rxai), while the
historians usually call them strathgo’ or Ärxontew. The long lists of officers sometimes appearing in
Procopius (e.g., Vand. 2.3.4 has six named and an unspecified number of unnamed Ärxontew holding
the left) may perhaps be what Maurice generically terms moirarchs (moir‡rxai), that is, officers
commanding ad hoc groups of two to four “regiments.”
41
This point was in fact appreciated by much earlier scholarship: Pontanus 1606: 223; Scheffer
1664: 401; Kulakovskii 1902: 5–6.
42
Note TLL s.v. globus II, col. 2054: Gloss: pl,yow.
Strategicon in which drouggo’ has the non-technical sense of “formations,” rather

than serving as the actual title of a unit. Thus, Maurice remarks that “the an-
cients, having carefully observed this principle, used to deploy in various ‘drungi,’
that is divisions and brigades according to the circumstances” (o´ úrxa”oi toto
parathr}santew e w droœggouw ¾toi m3rh ka“ mo’raw diaf—rouw pr—w t|n
xre’an Átasson, Strat. 2.1.19–20). Similarly, Maurice requires that the army be
divided “into brigades and divisions or the various so-called ‘drungi’ ” (e w mo’raw
ka“ m3rh ¾toi toLw legom3nouw droœggouw diaf—rouw, Strat. 2.2.2–3).43 The
epexegetical phrase toLw legom3nouw indicates Maurice’s employment of con-
temporary popular or vernacular expressions, which in this instance supplements
and in part clarifies his mo”ra and m3row. Indeed, existing at this more informal
linguistic register, the word droggow would have enjoyed a far wider currency
than these two genre terms.44 In this period, therefore, droggow remained
a popular expression meaning little more than “group” or “band” regardless of
size or deployment. The best indication of this is Maurice’s use of the term to
describe light infantry deployed in very small groups. In his discussion of how
infantry should employ skirmishing tactics when operating in densely wooded or
obstructed locations, he recommends that “light infantry be deployed not like the
heavy infantry in line, but in drungi (katˆ droœggouw),” which he specifies should
ideally comprise three or four javelineers and an archer, and should be positioned
on the march so that each drungus is easily able to support its neighbours.45 In
short, Maurice applies the term droggow with the generic sense of “group” or
“unit” to ad hoc formations ranging from five- to six-thousand-strong cavalry
divisions to four-man parties of light infantry. This sense corresponds closely to
the earlier usage of drungus in Vegetius, as a synonym for a globus of soldiers, and
in the Historia Augusta to designate “bands” of prisoners in a triumph, as well as
to John Chrysostom’s hostile application of droggow to a “mob” or “troop” of
militant monks.
It is only in middle Byzantine texts that droggow comes to be the official title
of a specific and permanent unit or “brigade,” a separate development that is worth
brief consideration insofar as it has sometimes been allowed to colour modern
readings of Maurice’s text. When Leo vi (886–912) adapted the Strategicon in
43 Dennis (1984) variously renders these passages. At 15 he translates the phrase Äyroisma
¾goun droggow (Strat. 1.3.14) as “an assemblage or grouping”; while at 23, e w droœggouw ¾toi m3rh
ka“ mo’raw diaf—rouw pr—w t|n xre’an Átasson (Strat. 2.1.19–20) becomes “droungoi, divisions,
and moiras of varying strength”; and at 25, e w mo’raw ka“ m3rh ¾toi toLw legom3nouw droœggouw
diaf—rouw (Strat. 2.2.2–3) is “divided into moiras and divisions, or the so-called droungoi, of varying
size.” At 99, “a single droungos or meros” (Strat. 9.3.103–104).
44 See Haldon 1984: 210–212, 385–386 for comments on informal and official terminology.
45 Strat. 12.B.20.32–42: ToLw dI ciloLw m| qw toLw skout‡touw \p' e[ye’aw t‡ttesyai, úllˆ
katˆ droœggouw, tout3sti tre”w É t3ssaraw mIn ciloLw úkontistˆw \piferom3nouw ka“ skout‡ria
a[t™n, ¨na, e xre’a g3nhtai, ka“ skouteœousi ka“ úkont’zousin o´ a[to’, ka“ £na dI toj—thn
Áxein ¿p' a[t™n ful‡ttesyai dun‡menon. ToLw dI toioœtouw droœggouw, qw eærhtai, m| \p“ mi‰w
parat‡jevw É \p' e[ye’aw t|n `doipor’an poie”syai, úll' \fej,w, m| \sparm3nvw . . . .
112 PHOENIX
the early tenth century to produce his own Tactica he retained verbatim much
of Maurice’s text concerning organization and command structures, replacing
terms and troop numbers where appropriate. Perhaps the clearest indication that
the term droggow had lost its earlier generic sense of “combination,” “unit,” or
“group” is Leo’s reworking of Maurice’s treatment of small-scale “group tactics”
for infantry, where Leo (or his editor[s]) deletes the phrase katˆ droœggouw, as
this use of droggow to mean “groups” of three or four men was incompatible
with contemporary usage.46 By this date droggow referred only to a specific,
permanent unit within the organisational structure of the Byzantine army. This
droggow amounted to around a thousand men, comprising five banda (b‡nda)
of 200 men, each under its own comes (k—mhw).47 Leo’s droggow thus equates
to what Maurice termed a mo”ra. In turn several of these “new” droggoi
made up a tourma (torma) of varying strength, which equates to Maurice’s
m3row.48 The fact that it is Maurice’s mo”ra, and not his m3row, that is later
46 The various recensions of Leo’s Tactica are of no concern here; it is sufficient to note that the
phrase is deleted from all manuscripts. Quotations below are from the unfinished Vári 1917–21, up
to book 14.38, and thereafter from the complete but defective edition in PG 107 (with earlier parallel
passages cited in parenthesis). Maurice Strat. 12.B.20.32–34, ToLw dI ciloLw m| qw toLw skout‡touw
\p' e[ye’aw t‡ttesyai, úllˆ katˆ droœggouw, tout3sti tre”w É t3ssaraw mIn ciloLw úkontistˆw
\piferom3nouw ka“ skout‡ria a[t™n becomes Leo, Tactica 9.63 (PG 9.64, col. 784) ToLw dI ciloLw
m| t‡tte \p' e[ye’aw kayWw toLw skout‡touw, úllˆ katˆ dœo É tre”w É t3ssaraw mIn ciloLw
úkontistˆw t‡jeiw \piferom3nouw ka“ tˆ skout‡ria a[t™n. This is probably an editorial deletion,
as the subsequent passage in Leo begins oddly with the phrase “drungi of this type” (ToLw dI toioœtouw
droœggouw). This led Vári, mistakenly I believe, to restore the deleted phrase. At the very least it is
safe to say that the passage confused later readers. The so-called “third recension” of Leo’s Tactica
or Recensio Constantiniana (in fact a detached section [chapters 1–55] of the Tactica of Nicephorus
Uranus, written ca 1010, which paraphrased Leo’s Tactica almost in its entirety), further reworked
the text for a contemporary readership: m| poi_w dI toLw ciloLw Ðlouw e w m’an paratag}n, ºw
ka“ toLw skoutar‡touw, úllˆ m’sge dœo, tre”w É t3ssaraw ciloLw ]iptaristˆw Áxontaw ka“ tˆ
skout‡ria a[t™n. For text, see apparatus to Vári 1917–21: 1.255; for identification, Dain 1937:
40–46.
47 Leo 4.11 (Vári = PG 4.9, col. 701D): Drougg‡riow dI l3getai ` mi‰w mo“raw Ärxvn, ³tiw ¿p˜ t˜
m3row to tourm‡rxou t‡ttetai. m3row g‡r \stin = torma, t˜ \k tri™n moir™n ¾goun droœggvn
sugke’menon Äyroisma, mo”ra d3 \stin ¾toi droggow t˜ \k tagm‡tvn ¾toi úriym™n É b‡ndvn
t™n legom3nvn kom}tvn sugke’menon pl,yow; Leo 4.44 (Vári = PG 4.42, col. 708C): e w xiliarx’aw
¾toi mo’raw, tˆw legom3naw droœggouw . . . moir‡rxaw . . . toLw legom3nouw drouggar’ouw, o¹w pote
xili‡rxouw \k‡loun o´ palaio’; Leo 4.45 ( Vári = PG 4.43, col. 708D): tˆw dI mo’raw taœtaw ¾toi
toLw droœggouw sun‡jeiw e w m3rh ¾goun toœrmaw; Leo 4.47 (Vári = PG 4.45, col. 709A): xr| d3,
qw eærhtai, m}te t‡gma pl3on t™n tetrakos’vn úndr™n g’nesyai ¾goun t˜ to k—mhtow b‡ndon,
m}te droggon pl3on t™n trisxil’vn, m}te torman pl3on t™n °jakisxil’vn (repeated Leo 18.149
(Vári = PG col. 988); Leo 13.4 (Vári = PG 13.3, col. 844): Sun‡jeiw dI \p“ sxol,w tñ stratñ katˆ
drouggouw ka“ katˆ toœrmaw; Leo 18.143 (PG col. 984), ka“ pr˜w toLtoiw poi}saw \n °kat3rÙ
pleurW makr—yen t‡gmata dœo úp˜ s', ºste e w \n3draw gen3syai, ¾goun \gkrœmmata Ányen
kake”yen t,w s,w parat‡jevw °st™taw, úyr—vw dI, ka“ t˜ leg—menon drouggist“ \kphd™ntaw,
ka“ katˆ t™n pleur™n t™n polem’vn \perxom3nouw.
48
The Byzantine term tourma (torma), meaning a “division” of 5,000 to 6,000 men, itself poses
several etymological and historical problems, given the earlier Roman usage of turma to mean a
squadron of between thirty and thirty-two horsemen.
officially known as droggow further argues against the conventional notion
that Maurice “frequently uses drouggos to mean meros.” This middle Byzantine
droggow was commanded by a droungarios (drougg‡riow), who thus supplanted
the generic moirarch (moir‡rxhw), as by a similar process Maurice’s ad hoc,
temporary and terminologically artificial merarch (mer‡rxhw) was replaced by
the official and permanent title of tourmarch (tourm‡rxhw).49 In both cases, the
droggow and torma were permanent structures whose commanding officers had
competence in fixed geographical regions. The same organizational framework
and terminology are found in the early to mid tenth-century Sylloge Tacticorum.
With certain organizational changes, this remained the standard unit structure
in the Byzantine army until the later tenth century, when it appeared to fall into
disuse.50
This post-sixth-century transition in the meaning of droggow appears to be
a logical progression from Maurice’s non-specific usage of the word in the sense
of a “grouping together,” “banding,” or “thronging,” which would naturally make
droggow applicable to the later permanent “brigading” together of different units,
and the process perhaps merely saw the term change its status from semi-official
or vernacular to official and “institutionalised.”51 This model for terminological
transition is further suggested by the fact that Maurice never uses the term
drougg‡riow, nor is it attested in any earlier text, but the rank first appears in
the context of 626, within a generation of the Strategicon. It is unclear whether
drougg‡riow represents a transliteration of an unattested Latin drungarius, or
was formed independently from droggow, but the latter seems more probable.
Either way, it is very unlikely that this office was “created” in the brief intervening
period—there is no evidence for military “reform” at this date—and is more
probably a case of a vernacular and rather non-specific designation for a “group
commander” gradually acquiring official usage and sanction. Since drougg‡riow
is attested as a permanent rank in sigillographic sources from the seventh century,
it appears that the “institutionalisation” of the terms droggow and drougg‡riow
took place at that time.52 For comparative purposes, a historical parallel may
49 For these developments and the variation in terminology see Haldon 1999: 108–215; 2000;
McGeer 1991. See Haldon 1990: 249 (in text C.447, 654) for the survival of mer(i)arches in certain
circumstances.
50 Sylloge Tacticorum 35.2 (Dain 1938: 56): Tourm‡rxhw dI ` tre”w droœggouw ¿f' °autñ Áxvn.
Drougg‡riow dI ` droœggou Ärxvn \n—w, eæh d' ©n droggow t˜ m3xri t™n trisxil’vn úndr™n
sœsthma, oáte dI t™n trisxil’vn \p3keina eæh ©n droggow, oáte m|n t™n xil’vn Álatton. See
Haldon 1999: 115–116; Treadgold 1995: 102–113.
51 See the comments on terminological currency and literary register by Haldon (1984: 110–112,
210–211; 1990: 174, 249).

52 A drougg‡riow first appears in the Chronicon Paschale entry for 626 (731.5), Y3odotow `
megaloprep3statow drougg‡riow, written ca 630. See also ps.-Sebeos History 44 (144) in Thomson,
Howard-Johnston, and Greenwood 1999: 1:109 for Smbat Bagratuni as drungar, in the context of
645/6. Interestingly, the first attestation of tourmarch is also in the context of 626/7, though in an
early ninth-century work; see Theophanes, Chron. 325.3, for George tourm‡rxhw t™n &Armeni‡kvn.
114 PHOENIX
be observed in the etymology of the modern English word “platoon,” for long
the standard official terminology for a unit of soldiers within the administrative
structure of the army (often a quarter of a company), but originally a vernacular
word for literally a “little ball” or “knot” of men, derived from the French peloton,
diminutive of pelote. The same transition to official unit title may be observed
in the case of “squadron,” originally designating any “square-shaped” deployment
(Italian squadrone; Latin squadra).53 Alongside this process of “institutionalisation”
there is some evidence for a continued popular usage. A ninth-century text still
appears to use droggow in the generic sense of “band” or “host.” Theophanes
describes two Bulgar kings invading the empire’s lower Danubian provinces “with
a host or gathering of Bulgars” (metˆ pl}youw Boulg‡rvn ka“ droœggou).54
Assuming the text of the Chronographia is not corrupt at this point, this passage
suggests that droggow continued to be used at different linguistic registers even
in the Middle Byzantine period.
DROUGGISTI
The cognate adverb drouggist’ used throughout the Strategicon clearly in-
dicates a specific tactical method used by Roman cavalry, though its precise
nature remains disputed. Scheffer, the editor princeps of the treatise, attempted
to deduce the nature of droggow and drouggist’ on the basis of Du Cange’s
lexical entry. This includes a misplaced reference to an identical but unrelated,
and apparently “Galatian,” word droggow, meaning ]œgxow or mukt}r—“snout”
or “nose.” Scheffer consequently concluded that Maurice’s droggow “habuisse
frontem mucronatum ad similitudinem proboscidis”; that is to say, it was a
pointed, “nose-shaped” tactical formation.55 The possible similarity between
troops deployed drouggist’ and earlier “wedge” formations will be considered
See generally Haldon 1984: 210–211; 1999: 107; see McGeer 1991 for continuing changes in the
meaning and importance of the rank.
53 Similarly “troop,” via French troupe, from the early mediaeval Latin troppus, meaning a flock or
herd, perhaps ultimately of Germanic origin.

54 Theophanes, Chron. 217.26–27: Toœt~ t! Átei \k’nhsan o´ Boulg‡reiw dœo ],gew metˆ
pl}youw Boulg‡rvn ka“ droœggou e w t|n Skuy’an ka“ Mus’an. Mango and Scott (1997: 317,
n. 3) note that the text is uncertain, with ka“ droœggou omitted in two mss (d and h). This perhaps
reflects no more than later scribal confusion regarding this word. De Boor’s emendation (1883: ad
loc.) to the personal names Boœlgar ka“ Droœgg (i.e., dœo ],gew) is unconvincing.
55 Scheffer 1664: 437. Du Cange (1688: s.v. droggow, cols. 1657–58) cites St Epiphanius’ Adversus
Haereses (written ca 375) for his etymology of the word Taskodroug”tai, a Montanist heretical sect
based in Phrygia. For text, see Epiphanius, Panarion 48.14.4: droggow dI mukt|r eæt' o{n ]œgxow
kale”tai . . . Taskodroug”tai, tout3stin passalorugx”tai. The word Taskodroug”tai appears to
be Galatian rather than Phrygian; the element rendered here droggow probably deriving from the
Celtic *trugna, “nose”; see Walde and Hofmann 1938–54: 374; Freeman 2001: 13–14. Note that in
the editions of Scheffer 1664: (unpaginated = 540) and Dennis 1981: 178–179 (as well as Dennis
1984: 47) the “concealed drungus” is represented in the diagrams at Strat. 3.10 by a number of circles
arranged in a triangle with its apex towards the rear. This diagrammatic depiction is not supported
by any manuscript evidence and misleads the modern reader. It appears to be Scheffer’s invention,
below, and as a general characterization Scheffer may well have been on the
right lines, but his etymological explanation was hopeless. Du Cange himself
defined drouggist’ rather cursorily as “per drungos, confertim, glomeratim.”56
Mihǎescu, presumably in accordance with his mistaken belief that droggow was
a synonym for m3row, assumed that “to deploy drouggist’” (drouggist’ t‡ssein)
or “to charge drouggist’” (drouggist“ `rm‰n) meant deployment in very large
formations or manoeuvres at divisional level—“en masse, en grand nombre, par
grandes unités.”57 Mazzucchi defined drouggist’ as “in ordine sparso,” that
is tactical deployment in a loose or open order; while Dennis variously renders
drouggist’ as “irregular formation,” “loose formation,” and “in irregular groups.”58
Dagron, by contrast, understands the term as “combat en escadrons agglutinés,” a
manoeuvring in conjoined units deployed “in a swarm” (“en essaim”) rather than
“en ligne” or “en coin.” He regards this deployment as an instance of mimétisme
of “Scythian” peoples and suggests a recent tactical borrowing from the Avars.59
There is therefore no consensus on whether the term drouggist’ refers to a large
or small formation, whether in “close order” or “loose order,” and nothing has
been written regarding its function or operation.
Unfortunately Maurice never explicitly describes what = drouggist’ (t‡jiw)
was, though he does say what it was not and further hints at its function. In his
exposition of cavalry manoeuvres and drill Maurice writes:
It is necessary to draw up and train the unit not only in a linear formation (\p“ m,kow
¥rdineœein), as the diagram shows—for this happens to be useful only for a main
engagement or charge—but also to deploy it drouggist’ and for it to charge in a straight
line and in different circling manoeuvres, first in withdrawals and counter-attacks, then
in surprise raids against the enemy, and furthermore in giving rapid support to those in
need.60
Later Maurice explains that troops assigned to ambushes “are more appropri-
ately deployed drouggist’ rather than in a full battle line, that is ordered as
decarchia and pentarchia” (Ærmodivt3rvw m‰llon drouggist“ t‡ssontai, ¾per
\p“ makr‰w parat‡jevw, tout3sti kat' »rdinon dekarx’aw É pentarx’aw).
Here he contrasts “to deploy drouggist’” and deployment in a formal line,
later copied by Dennis. Mihǎescu (1970: 126–129) and Mazzucchi (1981: 118–120) do not print this
symbol.
56 Du Cange 1688: s.v. drouggist’
57 Mihǎescu 1968: 496, in keeping with his earlier noted misunderstanding (above, 108, n. 37).
58 Mazzucchi 1981: 127: “quindi rivoltarsi e contrattaccare, ovviamente ormai in ordine sparso
(drouggist’).” A few lines later Mazzucchi describes the cursores as also “caricano in ordine sparso,”
though they were undoubtedly deployed differently from troops arrayed drouggist’.
59
Dagron 1987: 210; 1993: 280.
60
Strat. 3.5.63–69: %Oti o[ m—non, qw = katagraf| dhlo”, \p“ m,kow ¥rdineœnein ka“ gumn‡zein
únagka”—n \sti t˜ t‡gma, toto gˆr pr˜w m—nhn sumbol|n ka“ Åyhsin xr}simon tugx‡nei, úllˆ
ka“ drouggist“ t‡ssein ka“ \jelaœnein \p' e[ye’aw ka“ kœklouw diaf—rouw, pr™ton mIn diˆ tˆw
¿poxvr}seiw ka“ úntistrof‡w, eåta diˆ tˆw a fnid’ouw katˆ t™n \xyr™n \f—douw, loipñ dI ka“
diˆ t˜ sunt—mvw to”w deom3noiw \pibohye”n. See also comments of Scheffer (1664: 436–437).
116 PHOENIX
in which the cavalry troopers were drawn up in their decarchies or pentarchies,

the ten- and five-man units which comprised respectively the files of a ten- or
five-deep battle line.61 He explains that the two deployments possessed different
tactical capabilities, for while deployment “in a full battle line” (\p“ makr‰w
parat‡jevw)
is impressive and more effective and better ordered and engages in combat in safety, it is
slow and not easily manoeuvred when required, as it has only one purpose. Deployment
drouggist’ has the opposite character, for it can both easily conceal itself in ambush, for
which a small location suffices, and quickly manoeuvres according to requirements.62
Maurice reiterates the point: “For in these (operations) the distinction between
the two (deployments), as has been said, is that while one is for engaging in
combat effectively and safely, the other is for rapid support and pursuits and
sudden sallies and causing confusion” (&En toœtoiw g‡r \stin = diafor‡, qw
eærhtai, úmfot3rvn, Ðti = mIn t˜ sxur™w ka“ úsfal™w m‡xesyai Áxei, = dI
t˜ ¥j3vw tˆw bohye’aw ka“ diQjeiw, ka“ úyr—vw tˆw \peleœseiw ka“ taraxˆw
poie”syai).63 Maurice thus employs drouggist’ t‡ssein to describe troops
arrayed in a non-linear deployment, as opposed to more “regular” or formal linear
formations appropriate to the main charge in a pitched battle. This explanation
of drouggist’ t‡ssein recalls Vegetius’ globus, which is likewise distinct from
the main battle line (qui a sua acie separatus), and lacks a fixed position (vagantes
globi). To the extent that drungus equates to globus in Vegetius’ Epitoma, the
distributive adverb drouggist’, that is “in drungi” or “as drungi” corresponds to
the Latin globatim, and is consistent with other terminological developments in
tactical vocabulary, such as cuneus and cuneatim.64
Maurice discusses at some length the possible applications of cavalry arrayed
drouggist’ or “in drungi”; indeed Book 4, “On Ambushes” (Per“ &En3draw),
devotes a whole chapter to “How the men dispatched on ambushes and raids are
to be deployed in drungi” (Per“ to drouggist“ t‡ssesyai toLw e w \n3dran
ka“ \f—douw pempom3nouw). Maurice’s phrase “as drungi” (katˆ droœggouw)
noted above to describe infantry deployed in what modern military parlance
61 Strat. 4.5.7–8; cf. 17–18: katˆ dekarx’an É pentarx’an t‡ssesyai. The reference to decarchs
and pentarchs is a periphrastic expression meaning simply “in files.” A decarchia of ten cavalrymen
included the decarch, its commander, and the pentarch, his immediate subordinate. These could be
arrayed either ten deep, with the decarch as the first man in the file; or five deep, with both these
officers in the front rank, so that the whole unit thus had twice the frontage.
62 Strat. 4.5.8–12: A¹th gˆr komp| mIn ka“ sxurot3ra ka“ e[taktot3ra \st“ ka“ úsfal™w tˆw
sumbolˆw \n ta”w m‡xaiw poie”tai, brad3a dI ka“ dusmet‡yet—w \sti ta”w xre’aiw qw mon—tropow.
^H dI drouggist“ túnant’a Áxei, ka“ \n ta”w \n3draiw g‡r e[k—lvw lany‡nein dœnatai, ¥l’g~
t—p~ úrkoum3nh, ka“ sunt—mvw metat’yetai pr˜w tˆw xre’aw.
63 Strat.
4.5.19–22.
64 See,for example, Amm. Marc. 27.9.6: “in Isauria bands of brigands were overrunning
neighbouring districts” (at in Isauria, globatim per vicina digressi praedones).
might call small-scale “group tactics” is of some relevance. Just as light in-
fantry deployed katˆ droœggouw were ideal for operations in difficult terrain,
the tactical flexibility and manoeuvrability of = drouggist’ (t‡jiw) were suited
to ambushes, surprise attacks, stratagems, supporting roles, pursuits, and re-
connaissance operations of small cavalry forces, especially on terrain that would
quickly disrupt linear deployments. Maurice is emphatic that frequent practice
is the key to such tactical arrangements, with each unit undergoing separate
training, but he recognises that a drill manual is not the best vehicle to teach such
irregular tactics and recommends ad hoc and improvised training arrangements
to perfect these manoeuvres and accustom all cavalry units to fight drouggist’,
almost instinctively.65 Interestingly, he dismisses the attitudes of “certain re-
luctant and over cautious men” (tinaw t™n ¥knhrot3rvn ka“ úsfalest3rvn),
suggesting perhaps that these tactics were not sufficiently practised at the time of
writing.66
The term drouggist’ or “in drungi” therefore usefully summarised small-scale
“group tactics” in a range of “irregular” operations. Even on the battlefield,
however, deployment “in drungi” had a significant role. The essence of the
tactical system Maurice outlines for Roman cavalry is a series of shocks in
which successive waves sought to maintain the momentum of the attack in
the highly fluid conditions of mounted warfare. Maurice characterized the
“see-saw” nature of cavalry warfare as a sequence of “pursuits and counter-
pursuits” (diQjeiw ka“ úntidiQjeiw), an image confirmed by the reports of
contemporary historians.67 Ideally, only when one battle line had made several
attempts upon the enemy, each time falling back and renewing the assault,
did it withdraw towards its reserves, passing through intervals to the rear
where it then rallied and attacked again. In these circumstances cavalry units
would quickly lose all regular formation and therefore regrouped and attacked
drouggist’.68
65 See Maurice Strat. 4.5. Cf. 4.3.78–83 for an example of its use in an ambush; 3.5.63–75 for
comments on training. For general remarks on ambushes, surprise attacks, and reconnaissance, see
Strat. 2.5; 3.16; 4.1–4; 7.A.3, 5, 12, B.8; 9.1, 5.
66 Strat. 4.5.27–46. The tactical supremacy of an ordered battle line was a fundamental tenet
of Roman warfare, to which Maurice’s advocacy of “irregular” tactics by detached groups may have
appeared inimical; see, for example, the rhetorical contrast of Ammianus (31.15.15): “they no longer
fought with any order, but charging forward in detached groups—a sign of final desperation” (nullo
ordine iam sed per procursus pugnabatur et globos, quod desperationis erat signum extremae).
67 Strat. 3.15.14. See Procop. Pers. 1.15.15; Goth. 2.2.11–12, 4.8.20; Theoph. Sim. Hist. 2.3.10–12;
George Pisidia Exp. Pers. 153–162. This feature of mounted combat was itself, however, something
of a topos of ancient battle narratives; cf., for example, Tac. Ann. 6.35: modo equestris proelii more frontis
et terga vices. See also remarks at Goldsworthy 1996: 235–241.
68 Strat. 3.5.46–48: “And they regroup, sometimes in the interval[s] in that line, sometimes in the
area between the lines, and together they charge forward in drungi against the enemy” (Ka“ `tI mIn
\n a[t! t! diale’mmati taœthw, `tI dI \n t! metajL a[t,w \jel’ssesyai ka“ §ma drouggist“
118 PHOENIX
Identifying instances of the deployment that Maurice calls drouggist’ in

contemporary historical narratives is again problematic. This style of combat
rarely offered a suitable literary vehicle for Roman authors seeking to provide
their readers with a dramatic set-piece battle sequence. The classicising idiom
of the historical genre also creates basically cosmetic differences between military
narratives and the technical content and vernacular language of the Strategicon. It
is perhaps possible, however, to recognise the application of drouggist’ in late
Roman histories, as a flexible irregular grouping used in ambushes and surprise
attacks, and especially important in outflanking manoeuvres on the battlefield.
It is evident that these sorts of irregular cavalry tactics increased in frequency
and effectiveness in late antiquity, and, given the general obscurity of much of
the fifth century, the clearest examples date from the beginning of the sixth
century. In Procopius’ description of the battle of Dara in 530, for instance, the
allied force of 300 Heruli cavalry concealed behind a hill to charge out upon the
Persian flank recall Maurice’s troops deployed drouggist’ in an ambush beside
the Roman army’s main battle line; indeed Maurice elsewhere specifies that allied
troops, “who should be deployed in their customary manner” (qw Áyow Áxousin
o¹tvw de” t‡ssein), are often best suited to precisely this role.69 At the battle
of Satala in 530, the Roman general Sittas similarly concealed 1000 men behind
a hill.70 At Taginae in 552 Narses stationed a force of 1,000 cavalry behind his
left flank ready to charge around to the rear of the Ostrogothic infantry should
an opportunity arise, and again at Casilinum in 554 he hid the cavalry on the
Roman left in woodland.71 Procopius also provides vivid depictions of Roman
cavalry engaged in small units in successful skirmishing operations, including on
very broken terrain at Oenochalacon in Armenia in 539, and most impressively
during the Ostrogothic siege of Rome 537/8.72
The general character and function of drouggist’ are therefore reasonably
clear; it is its precise appearance and internal arrangement, such as its actual shape
and the positioning of the officers, that remain elusive. This is, of course, in
some measure due to the ad hoc and flexible nature of the deployment. In this
respect, however, middle Byzantine texts are again of some use in elucidating
the Strategicon, or at the very least indicate what later military writers, employing
substantially the same vocabulary, understood by the term drouggist’. On the
whole the Tactica of Leo vi follows Maurice verbatim in the use and meaning of
drouggist’, but Leo inserts certain glosses that provide additional information as
to its character: “in drungi or closely-packed” (drouggist“ ¾goun pukn™w); “in
`rm‰n katˆ t™n \xyr™n). Cf. the same drouggist“ to”w \xyro”w \p3rxesyai at 3.12.15–21, and
similar arrangements at 6.2.
69 Procop. Pers. 1.14.33, 39–40; Maurice Strat. 2.6.33–35. See the similar deployment of Hunnic
allied cavalry at Tricamerum in 533: Procop. Vand. 2.3.7.

70
Procop. Pers. 1.15.9–17.
71
Procop. Goth. 4.31.7; Agath. Hist. 2.8.3.
72
Procop. Pers. 2.3.19–27; Goth. 1.27.
drungi or as a mass” (drouggist“ ¾goun qw m‰za); “they deploy in drungi or massed

close together without files, not as in a full battle line” (drouggist“ t‡ssvntai
¾goun `mo qw m‰za Äneu ¥rd’nvn o[x“ dI \p“ makr‰w parat‡jevw), or “in
drungi, which is close together (but) without formation” (drouggist“ Ð \stin
`mo Äneu t‡jevw).73 The near-contemporary Sylloge Tacticorum adds the useful
comment, interestingly of Byzantine infantry:
When the . . . infantry units are not arrayed in formation or in files, but irregularly,
sometimes they extend their line to a greater length, but at other times, drawing themselves
together in drungi or as a mass, they launch attacks upon the enemy.74
These additional definitions indicate how later Byzantine writers, familiar with
the technical terminology employed by Maurice, attempted to clarify the word
drouggist’ for their readers. That drouggist’ was a deployment “not as in a full
battle line” (o[x“ dI \p“ makr‰w parat‡jevw) and “without formation” (Äneu
t‡jevw) or “without files” (Äneu ¥rd’nvn) is already clear from the Strategicon.
That it was also “closely-packed” (pukn™w) and “as a mass” (qw m‰za) is new
information. In the first instance, Greek authors of both military narratives and
technical treatises, in whose conventions Leo was well versed, had traditionally
framed their descriptions of non-linear deloyments, and especially “wedges,”
primarily in terms of their “closing ranks” (pœknvsiw), or the “compactness”
(pukn—thw) of their frontages, or other cognate expressions, and these terms of
reference were still current in Leo’s day.75 Second, Leo’s word m‡za appears to
derive from the Latin massa, originally a generic “mass” or “lump,” and later by
73
Leo, Tactica 7.32 (PG 7.37, col. 744C) [= Maurice 3.5.46–8]: ka“ potI mIn \n a[t! t!
diale’mmati taœthw, potI dI \n t! metajL a[t,w \jel’ssesyai, ka“ §ma drouggist“ ¾goun `mo
`rm‰n katˆ t™n \xyr™n; 7.35 (PG 7.40, col. 745A) [= Maurice 3.5.63–65]: O[ m—non dI \p“ m,kow
¥rdineœein ka“ gumn‡zein únagka”—n \stin, úllˆ ka“ drouggist“ t‡ssontaw gumn‡zein . . .; 7.42
(PG 7.47–48, col. 748B–C with variations) D3on dI ka“ plagiofœlakaw ka“ ¿perkerastˆw . . . d’vw
met& a[t™n drouggist“ ¾goun pukn™w ka“ `mo \mpipt—ntvn gumn‡zein . . . eåy' o¹tvw o´ sun—ntew
a[to”w drouggist“ ¾goun qw m‰za, `mou, lanyan—ntvw a[to“ m—noi Äfnv ¿pejerx—menoi metˆ
\las’aw ¥je’aw . . . [pukn™w is puknoLw in mss MWAV; \mpipt—ntvn . . .lanyan—ntvn is Vari’s
speculation for mss MWAV \mp’ptontaw . . .lanyan—ntvw; the phrase qw m‰za is omitted from mss
AP1V]; 14.57 (PG col. 868A–B) &AsfalIw dI ¿polamb‡nomen, ¨na o´ pr˜w \gkrœmmata pemp—menoi
. . . Ærmodi—n \stin, ¨na m‰llon drouggist“ t‡ssvntai, ¾goun `mo qw m‰za Äneu ¥rd’nvn o[x“
dI \p“ makr‰w parat‡jevw, tout3sti kat' »rdinon úk’aw dekarx’aw ¾ pentarx’aw; 18.148 (PG col.
988A), o[k úe“ suntetagm3noi st}sontai, úllˆ pr˜w t|n xre’an, potI mIn oÂtvw ¾toi drouggist“
\peleœsontai; 18.144 (PG col. 984D), drouggist“ Ð \stin `mou Äneu t‡jevw [The PG text has
Änent‡jevw but Äneu t‡jevw must be meant. The parallel Latin translation reads “confertim sine
acie”]. See also Kulakovskii 1902: 8, n. 1.
74 Sylloge Tacticorum 45.10 (Dain 1938: 72):&Epei dI tˆ . . . t™n pez™n t‡gmata o[k \n t‡jei ka“
katˆ sto’xouw, úll' úsunt‡ktvw \p’asi ka“ potI mIn e w m,kow ple”ston \kte’nontai, potI d' a{
sustell—menoi drouggist“ ka“ qw m‰za tˆw katˆ t™n polem’vn \f—douw poiontai.
75
See, for example, Diod. Sic. 15.55.4; Arr. Tact. 11.1–3. See Devine 1983: 204–206, 211. The
interpolated recension of Aelian’s Tactica Theoria (47.4 = Dain 1946: fr. L.4), produced by tenth-
century scholiasts using other, now lost Hellenistic treatises, includes the remark that Epaminondas
“compacted his army into a wedge” (puknQsaw e w Ámbolon t˜ str‡teuma).
120 PHOENIX
extension a “crowd” or “throng.”76 These glosses indicate that far from the “loose
order” which usually serves to define drouggist’, it entailed on the contrary the
deployment of a cavalry unit in a compact “mass” without “formation” (t‡jiw),
that is to say, its members were not drawn up in formal ranks and files.
the antecedents and historical context of DROUGGISTI

It has generally been assumed that in using the word drouggist’ Maurice
was describing a new kind of deployment and tactics, but the link between
changing terminology and tactical innovation is not straightforward, especially
when it is a matter, as here, of vocabulary in a vernacular idiom. While much
remains obscure, it is possible to identify tactics and formations in the military
theory and practice of earlier periods of antiquity which closely equate to what
Maurice calls drouggist’ t‡ssein or = drouggist’ (t‡jiw). There follow some
broad observations which seek to emphasise the overall character and operation of
certain earlier cavalry formations rather than their precise appearance or formation,
and less still their direct link to Maurice’s drouggist’. The close-order, non-
linear tactical formations attested for late classical and Hellenistic cavalry were the
“rhomboid” (]omboeid}w t‡jiw) and the “wedge” (\mboloeid}w or sfhnoeid}w
t‡jiw, Ámbolon, cuneus). Greek authors applied the term “wedge” (Ámbolon)
to a number of battlefield formations which varied considerably in size and
composition; to be clear, the concern here is only for the small-scale deployment
and manoeuvring of an individual cavalry unit in a solid D-shaped formation.77
This formation was discussed in earlier tactica, now represented by the extant
works of Asclepiodotus (first century b.c.), Aelian (ca a.d. 106–113), and Arrian
(ca a.d. 136), all three part of a continuous, if uncertain, textual tradition derived
from a lost Hellenistic archetype.78 The cavalry “wedge” was traditionally believed
to have originated among the Thracians and “Scythians,” from whom Philip ii
introduced the formation into the Macedonian cavalry.79 The incidence and
function of the cavalry “wedge” however are now unclear; in the surviving tactica
it is schematised into a rather geometric representation, the practicality of which
may be doubted, while historical narratives, despite the assertions of modern
scholarship, in fact contain no evidence for its actual deployment by Greek or
76 See Du Cange 1688: s.v. m‡za. The only other use of this word in Leo’s Tactica is in the literal
sense of a mass of iron comprising a projectile employed in naval warfare; see Leo 19.7 (PG col.
992): s’dhra bar3a, o<on m‡zaw jifoeide”w, d @n ¾ t|n nan diayrœcousin (“iron weights, such
as sword-shaped masses, using which they shatter the ship”).
77 Devine (1975; 1983) distinguishes the different meanings of Ámbolon in the historical sources
for the later fourth century b.c. ranging from small-scale D-shaped cavalry formations to grand tactical
L-shaped deployments of infantry or combined infantry and cavalry.
78
Asclep. 7.2–3, 6–7; Ael. 18.1, 4, 19.5, 40.2–6; Arr. Tact. 16.1, 6–8, 17.3. On the vexed question
of the relationship between these three texts, together with the so-called Glossarium Militare, see
Förster 1877: 426–449; Dain 1945: 26–40; Stadter 1978: 117–128; Devine 1995.
79
Ael. 18.4; Arr. Tact. 16.6
Macedonian cavalry. Recent studies of the combat capabilities of ancient cavalry

make it extremely doubtful that the “wedge” possessed the penetrative force or
purpose conventionally assigned to it.80 Of the three tactical treatises, Arrian’s
comments on the qualities of “wedge-shaped formations” (\mboloeide”w t‡jeiw)
are usually preferred to the texts of Aelian or Asclepiodotus, but it is important not
to permit our knowledge of Arrian’s actual experience of command to exaggerate
the authority of this author, who was always more scholar than soldier.81 Arrian
writes:
This formation seems useful because the leaders are deployed around the edge, and the
front tapering to a point can easily break through any enemy formation, and permits it to
make rapid wheeling manoeuvres and withdrawals. For square formations are difficult to
manoeuvre; but that which projects to a point, even if it advances in depth, by wheeling
upon the smallest movement of this leading point, the entire formation can manoeuvre
dextrously.82
Aelian, drawing on the same Hellenistic source, has a similar text but with
significant variations that cast some doubt on Arrian’s expertise in this matter.
Rather than Arrian’s “front tapering to a point” (t˜ m3tvpon \w ¥jL úpol,gon),
Aelian’s “wedge” has “a front that is somewhat narrow” (t˜ dI m3tvpon braxœ
ti gen—menon), suggesting a compressed but not necessarily “pointed” front.
Furthermore, while Arrian notes that the “wedge” can “easily break through
any enemy formation” (e[pet™w p‰san t‡jin polem’an diak—ptein), Aelian in
the same place remarks that its narrow front renders it “serviceable for riding
through any gaps that happen to appear” (t|n di’ppeusin eáxrhston poie”n
diˆ to tux—ntow diast}matow). That is to say, Aelian describes, much more
plausibly, cavalry “wedges” exploiting gaps that might open up in the enemy line,
rather than, as Arrian, their physical penetration of opposing formations.83 That
80 The only apparent reference to a small-scale tactical “wedge” (Ámbolon) of cavalry in fact
relates to Persians (Arr. Anab. 1.15.7), who, the Tacticians maintain, typically employed square cavalry
formations (Ael. 18.5; Arr. Tact. 16.9). Cavalry “wedges” are frequently noted in the modern literature,
though their geometric character is often taken too literally and their actual function is still rather
unclear. The repeated concentration on their ability to “penetrate” enemy formations exaggerates
the offensive capabilities of mounted troops. See Marsden 1964: 68–73 for an exceptionally literal
interpretation; Griffith in Hammond and Griffith 1979: 413–414; Devine 1983: 201–203; Spence
1993: 103–104, 107–109, 177–179; Worley 1994: 30–32, 157–158, 167, 172; Gaebel 2002: 157–158,
181–182; McCall 2002: 22–23, 147–149.
81 Bosworth 1972; Devine 1983: 202. Stadter (1978) demonstrates Arrian’s scholarly improvements
to the traditional format of the tactical manual, though at 127 considerably overstates Arrian’s
involvement in contemporary military developments.
82 Arr. Tact. 16.7–8: ½f3limow dI ka“ a¹th doke” = t‡jiw, Ðti \n kœkl~ o´ =gem—new tetagm3noi
e s’, ka“ t˜ m3tvpon \w ¥jL úpol,gon e[pet™w p‰san t‡jin polem’an diak—ptein par3xei, ka“
tˆw \pistrof‡w te ka“ únastrofˆw ¥je’aw poie”syai d’dvsin. a´ gˆr tetr‡gvnoi t‡jeiw dus-
peri‡gvgo’ e sin: = d' e w ¥jL prohgm3nh, e ka“ pro•osa \w b‡yow proxvre”, úll' a[t_ ge t_
úrx_ di' ¥l’gou \pistr3fousa t|n p‰san t‡jin e[mar™w \jelissom3nhn par3xetai.
83
Ael. 18.4.
122 PHOENIX
Aelian has in both instances reproduced their common source more faithfully
than Arrian is indicated by close verbal parallels with the corresponding passage
in Asclepiodotus, who again drew on the same lost Hellenistic treatise.84
What these authors do suggest, however, is that the wedge possessed many
of the same tactical attributes and capabilities Maurice allocates to drouggist’,
principally its distinction from linear formations, and in particular the ability
of the “wedge” to wheel easily in any direction, as opposed to relatively un-
manageable linear formations. Aelian’s comment on cavalry “wedges” deftly
exploiting potential gaps in the enemy line is reminiscent of Maurice’s descrip-
tion of the “concealed drungus” slipping around the enemy’s flank. This is
not to say that drouggist’ was necessarily the same as this Hellenistic cav-
alry formation, but rather that they shared much in principle. For compar-
ative purposes, the “wedge” offers some clues to the internal deployment of
a drungus. The ancient tacticians maintained that in rhomboidic and wedge-
shaped formations, “the best horsemen are stationed on the sides . . . and the
leaders at the corners” (toœw te gˆr úr’stouw t™n ´pp3vn \p“ t™n pleur™n
to ]—mbou t‡ssesyai ka“ katˆ tˆw gvn’aw toLw =gem—naw).85 In the case
of the “wedge” rapid manoeuvring and tactical reaction were facilitated by
the positioning of the officers and standard-bearers ahead of the other troops
on a narrow frontage, so that “all eyes are fixed on the single squadron-
commander, as is the case also in the flight of cranes” (pr˜w £na tñ l‡rxhn
úpoblep—ntvn Æp‡ntvn, qw ka“ \p“ t,w t™n ger‡nvn pt}sevw g’netai), and
likewise “the rhomboid formation seemed more essential for manoeuvring be-
cause it inclines towards its leader” (Ádoje t˜ ]omboeidIw únagkai—teron eånai
pr˜w tˆw metagvgˆw diˆ t|n pr˜w =gem—na nesin).86 Similarly, “cavalry
drawn up in this formation are able to wheel most quickly in each direc-
tion, with the least chance of being taken from the rear and on the flank”
(ka“ t‡xista mIn pr˜w °k‡sthn \pif‡neian str3fesyai dunam3nvn t™n \n
t! sx}mati toœt~ tetagm3nvn ´pp3vn, ³kista dI katˆ nQtou ka“ pl‡gion
Æl’skesyai).87
No direct link should be sought between Maurice’s drouggist’ deployment and
these historically distant and rather artificial tactical discussions. Nevertheless,
although little is known of earlier Roman cavalry deployment, similar tactics
84 Asclep. 7.3: t˜ gˆr m3tvpon t™n \mb—lvn braxL gin—menon . . . ]Œsthn \po’ei t|n di’ppeusin
(“for since the front of a wedge is narrow . . . it rides through with ease”). On the basis of Aelian’s more
expansive text, I find inaccurate the rendering of di’ppeusiw as “charging through the enemy ranks” in
Liddell-Scott, which influenced the translation “to break through” in the Loeb edition of this passage
of Asclepiodotus (Oldfather 1923: ad loc.).
85 Ael. 18.3; cf. Arr. Tact. 16.5.
86 Asclep. 7.3, 5.
87
Ael. 18.2; cf. Arr. Tact. 16.4: “it is both the most suitable for every manoeuvre and the
most secure against the least chance of being taken from the rear or on the flanks” (ka“ Ástin
\w p‰s‡n te metabol|n ÆrmodiQtaton ka“ pr˜w t˜ ³kista katˆ nQtou ¾ plag’ouw Æliskesyai
úsfal3steron).
appear to have been practised by Roman cavalry units during the Principate,
notably their deployment in a “wedge” or cuneus. The connection between the
character and tactical roles of drungus and cuneus is all the more instructive
given that the word cuneus was similarly used in a variety of senses that changed
with period and evidential context. From at least the second century b.c.
to the late-sixth-century a.d. Roman historians and military writers used the
word to describe deployments of both infantry and cavalry, both Roman and
non-Roman. These descriptions are frustratingly vague and individual authors
possibly employed the term differently; whether cuneus, cuneatim, and in cuneo
ever referred to a literally “wedge-shaped” formation is doubtful, and in most
cases these expressions probably mean no more than a body of troops deployed in
close order or in a non-linear formation.88 When applied to Roman cavalry the
usage of cuneus varied considerably in technical, literary, and documentary sources.
Epigraphic sources indicate that from the 230s at the latest cuneus came to be
employed as the official nomenclature for a certain type of cavalry unit. These
cunei equitum were originally “irregular” units recruited from non-Roman peoples
living beyond the frontiers of the empire, who were less likely to deploy formally
in files or to fight in linear formations; hence presumably their designation
as cunei, which was broadly indicative of their class and tactics rather than a
literal description of a battle formation.89 In the Notitia Dignitatum, however,
forty-seven regular Roman cavalry units among the vexillationes limitaneae bear
the title cuneus, though the creation of these cunei equitum appears to have been
confined to a relatively short period in the late third and early fourth centuries.90
It is wholly unclear how, if at all, these cunei equitum differed in organization
88
For the Roman infantry cuneus in histories see, for example, Caes. B Gall. 6.40; Livy 2.50.9;
7.24.7; Tac. Ann. 14.37, Hist. 2.42, 3.29; Amm. Marc. 17.13.9, 24.2.14. Cuneus also had a specific
and perhaps theoretical meaning for tactical writers and military antiquarians: Cato De re mil. fr.
11 in Jordan 1860: 82; Gell. NA 10.9.1; Veg. Epit. mil. 3.17, 19. The cuneus, transliterated as
koun’on, was still known as an infantry formation to Maurice: see Strat. 12.A.7.22–23. See generally
Lammert 1940; Goldsworthy 1996: 205–206; Nicasie 1998: 110–112. The belief that the infantry
cuneus, both Roman and Germanic, was never a genuinely “wedge”-shaped formation, but rather a
compact and essentially square column of attack was popularised by Delbrück (1921[1980]: 41–51),
who emphatically rejected the intrinsic utility of a wedge-shaped deployment in the warfare of any
period; his conclusions have frequently been repeated, often uncritically. I plan to examine the various
meanings of cuneus and related Roman deployments in a separate study.
89 Only three units called cunei are attested before the Notitia Dignitatum, all recruited from
the Frisii or Frisiones, and all stationed in northern Britain in the third century: cuneus Frisorum
Ver(coviciensium), post 222–235 (RIB 1594); cuneus Frisionum Aballavensium in 241/2 (RIB 882 883);
cuneus Frisiorum Vinonensium, unspecified third century (RIB 1036).
90 See also CTh. 7.13.7 (375): qui in ripa per cuneos auxiliaque fuerint constituti. In the Notitia
Dignitatum, the overwhelming concentration of forty-four of the forty-seven cunei equitum along
the ripa Sarmatica on the middle Danube, with just three other limitanei units elsewhere (two in
Egypt and one in Britain), suggests developments connected to a specific period, region, and/or
event, and probably relates to campaigns and frontier reorganizations of the Tetrarchic period and/or
Constantine. See Hoffmam 1969–70: 1.247–255; Southern and Dixon 1996: 33–35; Nicasie 1998:
63–64; Scharf 2001.
124 PHOENIX
or function from other cavalry units designated alae or equites; in at least one
case a cuneus listed in the Notitia is to all appearances an earlier ala simply
renamed.91 By extension, in narrative classicising histories, and at a vernacular
level also, cuneus came to mean any deployment of compact bodies of cavalry,
which were only “wedge-shaped” insofar as they were not linear formations. In
several passages Ammianus uses the term cuneus very broadly to designate the
tactical deployment of usually non-Roman forces.92 His contemporary St Jerome,
a valuable witness to popular usage, understood cuneus in the widest sense of
any “company” or “band” of horsemen.93 This brief survey of the usage of the
word cuneus serves in part to illustrate that variation in the meaning of drungus
throughout the period in question is consistent with the known development of
other technical terms in late Roman military vocabulary, and additionally suggests
that the compact, non-linear tactical deployment that Maurice calls drouggist’
is not the innovation that his use of this hitherto unattested expression might
imply.
Finally, it is worth noting that the capabilities of Roman cavalry in such
“irregular” tactics appear to broaden through contact with “Steppe” peoples (or
peoples with Steppe antecedents), such as Huns and possibly Ostrogoths and
Danubian Sarmatians. Roman authors regularly define such tactics as “Scythian”
or “barbarian,” or especially characteristic of the tactics of these nations.94 This is
most clearly demonstrated by the example of “feigned flights,” in which cavalry
simulated retreat and then wheeled about upon their disorganized pursuers,
sometimes in combination with concealed ambushers. This tactic was very rare
before the late third century, but is thereafter regularly recorded as part of
the Roman cavalry’s tactical repertoire.95 With regard to the deployment and
91 The single cuneus based in Britain in Notitia Dignitatum, the cuneus Sarmatarum at Ribchester
(Oc. 40.54), appears to be a direct descendant of the ala Sarmatarum based there in the first half of
the third century (RIB 594, 595), and identical to the oddly-named numerus equitum Sarmatarum
Bremetennacensium (RIB 583) in the same place a few decades later (a.d. 238–244 or later; perhaps also
the same as the numerus there on RIB 587 dated a.d. 222–235). This unit must have derived originally
from the 5,500 Sarmatians Marcus Aurelius sent to Britain in 175 (Cass. Dio 72.16.2). See also the
tile stamped “BSAR” reported from Catterick (RIB 2479), variously interpreted as a misreading of
N (umerus) or A(la) Sarm(atarum), or even Eq(uites) Sar(matae).
92 Amm. Marc. 16.11.5: cuneis tribus equitum expeditiorum et fortium; 17.2.1: Francorum validissimos
cuneos in sexcentis velitibus; 17.12.1: Sarmatas et Quados . . . cuneis incursare dispersis; 17.12.9: iunctis
densius cuneis; 25.6.7; 31.9.3: congregatos in cuneos; 31.16.4: cuneus Saracenorum.
93
St Jerome Vulgate, Judges 9.37; 1 Sam. 13.17. Jerome renders as cuneus the Hebrew word ,
meaning a “band” or “company” in no sense “wedge-shaped.” Cf. the Septuagint’s similarly neutral
úrx} in both passages. For assistance with this point I am grateful to G. G. B. Tindale (Peterhouse,
Cambridge) and A. A. Macintosh (St John’s, Cambridge).
94
Agath. Hist. 1.22.1: dialogis‡menow §panta ` Nars,w barbarik}n tina strathg’an ka“
m‰llon to”w Oánnoiw memelethm3nhn \mhxan‰to; Claud. Ruf. 1.329–331; Maurice Strat. 2.1.46–49,
4.2, 11.2.52–54; cf. 3.12.7–10, 9.2.92–95.
95 The first clear instance is Aurelian’s defeat of Palmyrene cataphracti at Immae in 272 at Zos.
1.50.3–4. Downey (1950) suggests unconvincingly that this was rather a strategic withdrawal to lure
the Palmyrene cavalry away from the Roman infantry. Note that at Emessa shortly afterwards the
tactics of “Scythian” cavalry, Roman authors conceived the Huns and Avars in
terms of highly manoeuvrable “wedges” or cunei. Ammianus describes the Huns
“entering battle in wedged-shaped formations . . . they purposely divide suddenly
into scattered bands and attack” (ineuntes proelia cuneatim . . . subito de industria
dispersi incessunt et incomposita acie).96 Maurice reports that the Avars deploy
“in various brigades as drungi, linking the brigades with one another” (úll' \n
diaf—roiw mo’raiw drouggist“ sun‡ptontew úll}laiw tˆw mo’raw), and notes
that they favour “wedge-shaped formations, that is to say, in separate units”
(ta”w katˆ koœnaw t‡jesi, tout3sti ta”w diesparm3naiw).97 Roman contacts
with the Huns from the 380s and the Avars from the 550s left their mark on
the equipment and techniques of Roman cavalry, and it is probable that Roman
efforts to develop a tactical response to “Steppe” cavalry placed greater emphasis
on the existing attributes of Roman cavalry, principally its mobility, and to
some extent required additional capabilities, including greater tactical flexibility
and improved mounted archery. In these circumstances the type of tactics
that late Roman authors variously described using terms such as drouggist’,
globatim, cuneatim—designating compact, non-linear, “group” deployment suited
to irregular operations, ambushes, feints, and sudden attacks—although not
“new,” were undoubtedly of greater concern to late Roman tactical writers than
to their predecessors, a case of changing emphasis rather than tactical innovation.
conclusions
Although first attested in late fourth-century texts, the Gaulish-derived loan-
word drungus (*dhrungho), with the original meaning of “band” or “throng,” was
most probably adopted earlier in the Principate and had a “prehistory” at the
same tactic ended in near disaster, cf. Zos. 1.53.1. For historical examples: Zonar. 13.5.9–13 (a.d.
340); ps.-Joshua Stylites 75; (probably) Procop. Pers. 1.13.36: metˆ dI ^Rvma”oi mIn o´ fug—ntew \k
to a fnid’ou pr˜w a[toLw ºrmhsan; Goth. 2.5.11: o´ mIn Ðti feœgousi d—jan par3xontew, o´ dI
diQkein toLw polem’ouw o —menoi; J. Mal. 391.29–34; Agath. Hist. 1.22: ka“ \w pal’vjin tˆ t,w
fug,w metexQrei; Theoph. Sim. Hist. 2.17.11: \pipl‡st~ fug_; George Pisidia Exp. Pers. 3.186–219
(= Theoph. Chron. 305.24–306.2). For Roman tactica see Veg. Epit. mil. 1.27; Syrianus De strat. 40;
Maurice Strat. 2.1.44–51, 4.2–3, 11.3.33, 11.4.124–127. See also = legom3nh fugomax’a at Strat.
4.3.32; t˜ leg—menon fugomaxe”n at 7.B.11.16. This phrase appears in other earlier texts, but with the
different sense of “avoiding battle.” For a possible earlier instance of Roman feigned flight, see Joseph.
BJ 4.1.8 (60), which describes the withdrawal and return of 600 cavalry under Placidus near Mount
Tabor (fug|n ¿pokr’netai ka“ diQkontaw °lkœsaw \p“ polL to ped’ou toLw ´ppe”w \pistr3fei),
though this seems to be a strategic withdrawal to lure the Jews from the mountain; see Placidius and
similar tactics at idem 4.7.4 (421–436).
96
Amm. Marc. 31.2.8. Cf. Curt. 7.7.35 on Scythian Dahae cavalry deployed in cuneos. See
Zástěrová 1971: 25 for cunei as one of the standard topoi comprising classical descriptions of “Scythian”
military methods.
97 Strat. 11.2.40–43 (Dennis 1981: 362, incorrectly úll}loiw), 54–55. Maurice uses this Greek
transliteration of cuneus in only one other passage, to describe the “so-called wedges of infantry”; cf.
Strat. 12.A.7.24: tˆ leg—mena t™n pez™n koun’a. For Avars deployed in multiple bands see Theoph.
Sim. Hist. 8.2.11: d3ka ka“ p3nte sust}masin \joplis‡ntvn t|n Áktajin; 3.9: duoka’deka
sust}masin \jopl’zei tñ p—lemon.
126 PHOENIX
vernacular level of “army slang.” Drungus was a nominal borrowing, which was
not accompanied by specific tactical or organisational changes in the Roman army;
that is to say, the adoption of a Gaulish word does not imply the simultaneous
adoption of a specific Gallic technique. Its first appearance in the late fourth cen-
tury largely reflects a dearth of earlier extant texts either with sufficient technical
content or without prejudice against “barbarian” or vulgar vocabulary inconsistent
with stylistic purity. From its first attestation drungus/droggow was a generic
term for a “group” or “band,” which reflected the core meaning of this loanword,
perhaps originally applied to a relatively small unit when arrayed in an “irregular”
formation and deployed in certain tactical operations, such as outflanking attacks.
Later drungus/droggow also came to be a popular, non-technical designation for
any group of soldiers, equally applicable to a division of 5–6,000 horsemen as to
a band of three or four infantrymen. It is only later, probably in the early seventh
century, that droggow became the official title for a permanent “brigade.” The
tactical deployment Maurice calls drouggist’ or “in drungi” recalls the earlier
sense of drungus, and meant the non-linear deployment of cavalry in compact,
mutually supporting groups or “masses,” well suited to conducting stratagems and
irregular tactics. While this word is unattested before Maurice’s Strategicon, the
deployment itself was broadly similar in character and function to earlier so-called
“wedges” of cavalry, of which there was a long if rather theoretical literary tradition
in Hellenistic tactical treatises, and to some of the meanings of the subsequent
Roman cavalry cuneus. The greater frequency with which such deployments are
reported in late Roman historical narratives, and their explicit similarity to the
cavalry tactics of “Steppe” peoples, reflects not so much a radical “reform”—and
still less the “barbarization” of Roman cavalry tactics—as a changed emphasis
towards irregular warfare, in which various ruses de guerre created favourable
tactical circumstances and to some extent replaced pitched battle altogether in
the generally low-intensity defensive warfare associated with the ongoing main-
tenance of frontier security that characterises the later Roman period.
Hove, E. Sussex, U.K. prr@fastnet.co.uk
bibliography
Bartusis, M. C. 1991. “Droungos,” in ODB 1.664.

Bishop, M. C. 1988. “Cavalry Equipment of the Roman Army in the First Cen-
tury a.d.,” in J. C. Coulston (ed.), Military Equipment and the Identity of Roman
Soldiers: Proceedings of the Fourth Military Equipment Conference. BAR ser. 394.
Oxford.
Bosworth, A. B. 1972. “Arrian’s Literary Development,” CQ n.s. 22: 163–185.
Bowman, A. K. and Thomas, J. D. 1987. “New Texts from Vindolanda,” Britannia 18:
125–142.
Brüch, J. 1913. Der Einfluss der germanischen Sprachen auf das Vulgärlatein. Heidelberg.
Cheeseman, G. L. 1914. The Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army. Oxford.
Czúth, B. 1965. Die Quellen der Geschichte der Bagauden. Szeged.

Dagron, G. 1987. “Ceux d’en face: Les peuples étranges dans les traités militaires
byzantins,” Travaux et Mémoires 10: 207–232.
—— 1993. “Modèles de combattants et technologie militaire dans le Stratègikon de
Maurice,” in Kazanski and Vallet 1993: 279–284.
Dain, A. 1937. La “Tactique” de Nicéphore Ouranos. Paris.
—— ed. 1938. Sylloge Tacticorum quae olim “Inedita Leonis Tactica” dicebatur. Paris.
—— 1946. Histoire du texte d’Elien le Tacticien. Paris.
de Boor, C. ed. 1883. Theophanis chronographia. Leipzig.
Delamarre, X. 2003. Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise: une approche linguistique du vieux-
celtique continental 2. Paris.
Delbrück, H. 1921. Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen Geschichte 2. Berlin
(= History of the Art of War 2: The Barbarian Invasions [tr. W. J. Renfroe; London
1980]).
Dennis, G. T. ed. 1981. Das Strategicon des Maurikios. Corpus Fontium Historiae
Byzantinae 17. Vienna.
—— 1984. Maurice’s Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy. Philadelphia.
Devine, A. M. 1975. “Grand Tactics at Gaugamela,” Phoenix 29: 374–385.
—— 1983. “EMBOLON: A Study in Tactical Terminology,” Phoenix 37: 201–217.
—— 1995. “Polybius’ Lost Tactica: The Ultimate Source for the Tactical Manuals of
Asclepiodotus, Aelian, and Arrian?,” Ancient History Bulletin 9: 40–44.
Dixon, K. R. and P. Southern. 1992. The Roman Cavalry. London.
Dottin, G. 1920. La langue gauloise: Grammaire, textes et glossaire. Paris.
Downey, G. 1950. “Aurelian’s Victory over Zenobia at Immae in a.d. 272,” TAPA 81:
57–68.
Drinkwater, J. F. 1992. “The Bacaudae of Fifth-Century Gaul,” in J. F. Drinkwater and
H. Elton (eds.), Fifth-Century Gaul. Cambridge. 208–217.
du Cange, C. du Fresne. 1688. Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis.
Lyons.
—— 1885–87. Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Latinitatis. Rev. ed. by L. Favre
(originally Paris 1678). Niort.
Durliat, J. 1979. “Magister Militum—strathl‡thw dans l’empire byzantine, vie–viie
siècles,” BZ 72: 306–320.
Elton, H. 1996. Warfare in Roman Europe. Oxford.
Ernout, A. and A. Meillet 1979. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine4. Paris.
Förster, R. 1877. “Studien zu den griechischen Taktikern,” Hermes 12: 426–471.
Freeman, P. 2001. The Galatian Language: A Comprehensive Survey of the Language of the
Ancient Celts in Greco-Roman Asia Minor. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 13.
Lewiston, NY.
Gamillscheg, E. 1970. Romania Germanica: Sprache- und Siedlungsgeschichte der Germanen
auf dem Boden des alten Römerreiches2. Berlin.
Gaebel, R. E. 2002. Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World. Norman, OK.
Goetz, G. ed. 1889. Corpus glossarium latinorum. Leipzig (repr. Amsterdam 1965).
Goldsworthy, A. K. 1996. The Roman Army at War 100 B.C.–A.D. 200. Oxford.
Green, D. H. 1998. Language and History in the Early Germanic World. Cambridge and
New York.
128 PHOENIX
Grosse, R. 1920. Römische Militärgeschichte von Gallienus bis zum Beginn der byzantinischen
Themenverfassung. Berlin.
Haldon, J. F. 1984. Byzantine Praetorians: An Administrative, Institutional and Social Survey
of the Opsikion and Tagmata, c. 580–900. Bonn.
—— ed. 1990. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions.
Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 28. Vienna.
—— 1999. Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World 565–1204. London.
—— 2000. “Chapters II, 44 and 45 of the De Cerimoniis: Theory and Practice in
Tenth-Century Military Administration,” Travaux et Mémoires 13: 201–352.
Hammond, N. G. L. and G. T. Griffith. 1979. A History of Macedonia 2. Oxford
Hoffmam, D. 1969–70. Das spätrömische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum.
Dusseldorf.
Holder, A. 1896. Alt-Celtischer Sprachschatz. Leipzig.
Holl, K. ed. 1915. Epiphanius. 3 vols. Berlin (vols. 2–3 rev. ed. J. Dummer [Berlin 1986]).
Hyland, A. 1990. Equus: The Horse in the Roman World. London.
—— 1993. Training the Roman Cavalry: From Arrian’s Ars Tactica. Stroud.
Jordan, H. ed. 1860. M. Catonis praeter librum De re rustica quae extant. Leipzig (repr.
Stuttgart 1967).
Junkelmann, M. 1992. Die Reiter Roms 3: Zubehör, Reitweise, Bewaffnung. Mainz.
Kazanski M. and F. Vallet (eds.) 1993. L’armée romaine et les barbares du III e au VII e siècles.
Mémoires de l’Association Française d’Archéologie Mérovingienne 5. Paris.
Kempf, J. G. 1901. “Romanorum sermonis castrensis reliquiae collectae et illustratae,”
Jahrbücher für classische Philologie Supp. 26. 338–400.
Kolias, T. 1993. “Tradition und Erneuerung im Frühbyzantinischen Reich am Beispiel
der militärischen Sprache und Terminologie,” in Kazanski and Vallet 1993: 39–44.
Kollautz, A. 1985. “Das militärwissenschaftliche Werk des sog. Maurikios,” BYZANTI-
AKA 5: 87–136.
Kromayer, J. and G. Veith. 1928. Heerwesen und Kriegführung der Griechen und Römer.
Munich.
Kuhn, H. 1972. “Das römische Kriegswesen in germanischen Wortschatz,” Zeitschrift für
deutsches Altertum 101: 13–53.
Kulakovskii, J. A. 1902. “Drung i Drungariı̌,” Vizantiı̌skiı̌ Vremennik 9: 1–30.
Lambert, P.-Y. ed. 1997. Lexique étymologique de l’irlandais ancien de J. Vendryes, Lettre D.
Dublin and Paris
—— 2003. La langue gauloise: Description linguistique, commentaire d’inscriptions choisies.
rev. ed. Paris.
Lammert, F. 1940. “Der Keil in der Taktik des Altertums,” Gymnasium 51: 15–31.
Lommatzsch, E. 1903. Vegeti Digesti artis mulomedicinae. Leipzig.
Luff, R. M. 1982. A Zooarchaeological Study of the Roman North-Western Provinces. BAR
ser. 137. Oxford.
MacMullen, R. 1966. “Provincial Languages in the Roman Empire,” AJP 87: 1–17.
Mango, C. and R. Scott, with G. Greatrex. 1997. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor:
Byzantine and Near Eastern History, A.D. 284–813. Oxford.
Marsden, E. W. 1964. The Campaign of Gaugamela. Liverpool.
Mazzucchi, C. M. 1981. “Le KATAGRAFAI dello Strategicon di Maurizio e lo schieramento
di battaglia dell’esercito Romano nel vi/vii secolo,” Aevum 55: 111–138.
McCall, J. B. 2002. The Cavalry of the Roman Republic: Cavalry Combat and Elite
Reputations in the Middle and Late Republic. London and New York.
McGeer, E. 1991. “Droungarios,” ODB 1.663.
Mihǎescu, H. 1968. “Les éléments latins des ‘Tactica-Strategica’ de Maurice-Urbicius et
leur écho en néo-grec (I),” Revue des Études Sud-est Européennes 6: 481–498.
—— ed. and tr. 1970. Mauricius Arta Militarǎ. Scriptores byzantini 6. Bucharest.
Milner, N. P. 1996. Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science2. Liverpool.
Minor, C. E. 1975. “ ‘Bagaudae’ or ‘Bacaudae’,” Traditio 31: 318–322.
Niedermann, M. 1921. “Notes d’étymologie française,” Archivum Romanicum. Nuova
Rivista di Filologia Romanza 5: 436–448.
Nicasie, M. J. 1998. Twilight of Empire: The Roman Army from the Reign of Diocletian until
the Battle of Adrianople. Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 19.
Amsterdam.
Oldfather, W. A. ed. 1923. Aeneas Tacticus, Asclepiodotus, Onasander. Cambridge, MA and
London.
Oman, C. 1898. A History of the Art of War: The Middle Ages from the Fourth to the
Fourteenth Century. London.
Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (ODB). 1991. 3 vols. Ed. A. P. Kazhdan. Oxford.
Pedersen, H. 1909–13. Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen. 2 vols. Göttingen.
Pokorny, J. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern.
Pontanus, I. I. 1606. Itinerarium Galliae Narbonensis . . . cui accedit Glossarium Prisco-
Gallicum seu ac Lingua Gallorum veteri. Leyden.
Rance, P. 1994. Tactics and Tactica in the Sixth Century: Tradition and Originality. Diss.,
St Andrews.
—— 2000. “Simulacra pugnae: The Literary and Historical Tradition of Mock Battles in
the Roman and Early Byzantine Army,” GRBS 41.3: 223–275.
—— 2004. “The fulcum, the Late Roman and Byzantine testudo: The Germanization of
Late Roman Tactics?,” GRBS 44: 265–326.
Richardot, P. 1998. “La datation du De Re Militari de Végèce,” Latomus 57: 136–147.
Saddington, D. B. 1982. The Development of the Roman Auxiliary Forces from Caesar to
Vespasian. Harare.
Scharf, R. 2001. “Equites Dalmatae und cunei Dalmatarum in der Spätantike,” ZPE 135:
185–193.
Scheffer, J. 1664. Arriani Tactica et Mauricii Ars Militaris. Uppsala.
Schmidt, K. H. 1967. “Keltisches Wortgut im Lateinischen,” Glotta 44: 151–174.
Southern, P. and K. R. Dixon. 1996. The Late Roman Army. London.
Speidel, M. P. 2000. “Who Fought in the Front?,” in G. Alföldy, B. Dobson, and W. Eck
(eds.), Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft in der Römischen Kaiserzeit: Gedenkschrift für Eric
Birley. Stuttgart. 473–482.
Spelman, H. 1664. Glossarium Archaiologicum continens Latino-barbara, peregrina, obsoleta,
et novatae significationis vocabula. London.
Spence, I. G. 1993. The Cavalry of Classical Greece: A Social and Military History with
Particular Reference to Athens. Oxford.
Stadter, P. A. 1978. “The Ars Tactica of Arrian: Tradition and Originality,” CP 73:
117–128.
Szádeczky-Kardoss, S. 1968. “Bagaudae” in RE Suppl. XI (Stuggart), col. 346–354.
130 PHOENIX
Terracini, B. 1921. “Gallico e Latino: A proposito di un recente libro sulla lingua gallica,”
Rivista di Filologia e d’Istruzione Classica 49: 401–430.
Thomson, R. W., J. Howard-Johnston, and T. Greenwood. 1999. The Armenian History
Attributed to Sebeos. Liverpool.
Treadgold, W. 1995. Byzantium and Its Army. Stanford.
van Dam, R. 1985. Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul. Berkeley.
Vári, R. ed. 1917–21. Leonis Imperatoris Tactica. Budapest.
Vendryes J. 1924. “Chronique,” Revue Celtique 41: 492–513.
von Miklosich, F. 1886. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen. Vienna.
Walde, A. and J. B. Hofmann. 1938–543. Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidel-
berg.
Walker, R. E. 1973. “Roman Veterinary Medicine” in J. M. C. Toynbee, Animals in
Roman Life and Art. London. 303–343.
Weisgerber, L. 1931. “Die Sprache der Festlandkelten” in Deutsches Archäologisches Institut,
Römisch-germanische Kommission, XXter Bericht, 1930. Frankfurt-am-Main. 147–226.
Whatmough, J. 1950. The Dialects of Ancient Gaul. Typescript, Cambridge, MA
(posthumously reproduced unedited in idem, The Dialects of Ancient Gaul [Cambridge,
MA 1970]).
Whitby, L. M. 1995. “Recruitment in Roman Armies from Justinian to Heraclius (ca.
565–615),” in A. Cameron (ed.), The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East 3: States,
Resources and Armies. Princeton. 61–124.
Worley, L. J. 1994. Hippeis: The Cavalry of Ancient Greece. Boulder.
Zástěrová, B. 1971. Les Avares et les Slaves dans la Tactique de Maurice. Rozpavy
Československé Akademie věd, Řada společenských věd 81.3. Prague.
Zilliacus, H. 1935. Zum Kampf der Weltsprachen im oströmischen Reich. Helsinki.
Zuckerman, C. 1994. “Sur la date du traité militaire de Végèce et son destinaire
Valentinien ii,” SCI 13: 67–74.
View publication stats

Rance 2004 Drungus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rance 2004 Drungus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Drungus, Δροῦγγος and Δρουγγιστί – a Gallicism and Continuity in Roman

Article in Phoenix · January 2004

RESEARCH PROJECTS: RECENT AND FORTHCOMING View project

REVIEWS View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DRUNGUS, DROUGGOS, AND DROUGGISTI: A GALLICISM

This paper is a study of continuity of both practice and terminology

he omitted discussion of the term drouggist’ altogether.2 Drungus, dro ggow,

DRUNGUS in latin sources and its etymology

fragment of Cato’s treatise: “one needs to attack in a ‘wedge’ or a ‘group’ or with

8 Cato De re mil. fr. 11 in Jordan 1860: 82.

therefore contemporary with Vegetius’ Epitoma. In a chapter detailing the

quam duceni globis singulis ducerentur.

1996; Nicasie 1998: 107–116.

26 Gulvia is glossed as podoglifin (= podoglœfin; var. podoglufe”oin) in Corpus Glossariorum

DROUGGOS in greek sources

stoixe’vsin ¾toi e sagvg|n), which is concerned primarily with the day-to-day

the official late Roman nomenclature for “brigade” and “division”—indeed it

Strategicon in which drouggo’ has the non-technical sense of “formations,” rather

210–211; 1990: 174, 249).

herd, perhaps ultimately of Germanic origin.

in which the cavalry troopers were drawn up in their decarchies or pentarchies,

Identifying instances of the deployment that Maurice calls drouggist’ in

allied cavalry at Tricamerum in 533: Procop. Vand. 2.3.7.

drungi or as a mass” (drouggist“ ¾goun qw m‰za); “they deploy in drungi or massed

the antecedents and historical context of DROUGGISTI

Macedonian cavalry. Recent studies of the combat capabilities of ancient cavalry

Bartusis, M. C. 1991. “Droungos,” in ODB 1.664.

Czúth, B. 1965. Die Quellen der Geschichte der Bagauden. Szeged.

View publication stats

You might also like

he omitted discussion of the term drouggist’ altogether.2 Drungus, droggow,